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

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

On March 11, 1985, the world learned of the death of the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee 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 What remained was 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. Backlash This action was prompted by 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.

General requirement The Baltic states condemned 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 an immediate reaction: armed uprisings began by Abkhazians and Ossetians, peoples who were not only numerous, but also endowed with their own statehood under 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!” The forces of 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 common life in the Union to 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 of the parties. 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.

1. The death of the Russian Empire and the formation of the USSR.

2. National policy in the USSR.

3. Collapse of the USSR.

Perestroika, which began in 1985, politicized all areas public life countries. Gradually, the true history of the USSR as a multinational state became known, and interest arose in issues of interethnic relations and in the practice of resolving the national question in the Soviet state. One of the consequences of this process was an explosive surge in national self-awareness. The charge of violence, once directed at national regions, returned to the center, taking on a clear anti-Russian orientation. The long-term pressure of fear was leaving, and nationalist slogans became the most effective way not only to put pressure on the central authorities, but also to create a certain distance between the increasingly strengthened national elites and the weakening Moscow.

Taking shape in the USSR by the end of the 1980s. the socio-political atmosphere was in many ways reminiscent of the situation during the collapse Russian Empire. The weakening of autocratic power at the beginning of the twentieth century, and then its liquidation by the February Revolution, stimulated the centrifugal aspirations of heterogeneous parts of the empire. National question was in tsarist Russia for a long time“blurred”: the differences between the peoples of the empire were, rather, not based on nationality, but on religious grounds; national differences were replaced by class affiliation. In addition, in Russian society the split along social sign, which also muted the urgency of the national question as such. It does not follow from this that national oppression did not exist in Russia. Its most striking expression was Russification and resettlement policy. Using the latter to solve the problem of scarcity of land for European peasants, not only Russians, but also Ukrainians, Belarusians, some peoples of the Volga region, Orthodox by religion, tsarism significantly oppressed other peoples, primarily in Siberia, the Far East, Kazakhstan, and the foothills North Caucasus. In addition, some peoples of the empire, for example the Poles, were never able to come to terms with what they lost in the second half of the 18th century. own national statehood. Therefore, it is no coincidence that at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries. National and national liberation movements begin to gain strength, which in some cases acquire a distinctly religious overtones; the ideas of pan-Islamism find their adherents among the Muslim peoples of the empire: the Volga Tatars, Transcaucasian Tatars (Azerbaijanis), and in the Central Asian protectorates.

The usual border of the Russian Empire took shape only end of the 19th century V. it was a “young” country that had just found its geographical boundaries. And this is its significant difference from the Ottoman or Austro-Hungarian empires, which at the beginning of the twentieth century. were on the verge of natural collapse. But they were united by one thing - these empires were of a military-feudal nature, that is, they were created primarily by military force, and economic ties and a single market were formed within the framework of the created empires. Hence the general looseness, weak connections between the regions of the empire and political instability. In addition, these empires included different peoples and cultures, for example, the Russian Empire included territories with completely different economic and cultural types and other spiritual guidelines. The Lithuanians continued to focus on Catholicism in its Polish version: long-standing ties with Poland and the memory of the once united Polish-Lithuanian state - the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - had an effect. Naturally, in the Russian part of Poland itself, the historical memory of the local population was even stronger. Latvians and Estonians did not lose spiritual and cultural ties with the Balto-Protestant area - Germany and Scandinavia. The population of these territories still considered themselves part of Europe, and the power of tsarism was perceived as national oppression. Although the centers of the Islamic world - Turkey and Persia - remained outside the Russian Empire, this did not lead to a significant change in the cultural and spiritual orientation of the population of the Central Asian and, partly, Caucasian regions, or to the loss of their previous preferences.

There was only one way out for the central government - the inclusion of the nobility of the conquered or annexed lands into the ruling elite. The All-Russian Census of 1897 showed that 57% of the Russian hereditary nobility called Russian their native language. The rest are 43% of the nobility (hereditary!), being in the ruling elite Russian society and states still considered themselves Polish or Ukrainian gentry, Baltic barons, Georgian princes, Central Asian beks, etc.

Hence the main feature of the Russian Empire: there was no clear national (and geographical) distinction between the Russian metropolis itself and the colonies of other ethnicities, as, for example, in British Empire. Almost half of the oppressive layer consisted of representatives of conquered and annexed peoples. Such a powerful inclusion of the local nobility in the ruling structures of the Russian state to some extent ensured the stability of the empire. The policies pursued by such a state, as a rule, did not have an overt Russophile orientation, that is, they were not based on the interests of the Russian part of the empire’s population. Moreover, all the forces of the people were constantly spent on military expansion, on the extensive development of new territories, which could not but affect the condition of the people - the “conqueror”. On this occasion, the famous Russian historian V.O. Klyuchevsky wrote: “Since the half of the 19th century. the territorial expansion of the state proceeds in inverse proportion to the development of the internal freedom of the people... as the territory expanded, along with the growth of the external strength of the people, their internal freedom became increasingly constrained. In a field that was constantly expanding thanks to conquest, the scope of power increased, but the lifting power of the people's spirit decreased. Outwardly, the successes of the new Russia resemble the flight of a bird, which is carried and thrown by a whirlwind beyond the strength of its wings. The state was swelling, and the people were dying” (Klyuchevsky V.O. Course of Russian History. M., 1991. T. 3. P. 328).

After its collapse, the Russian Empire left the Soviet Union, which arose on its basis, with a number of its unresolved problems: the different economic and cultural orientation of the peoples and territories that were part of it, which ensured the permanently growing influence of various cultural and religious centers on them; the weakness of economic ties between its various parts, which gave impetus to the onset of centrifugal processes, especially with the weakening of central power and the deterioration of the economic situation; the unfading historical memory of the conquered peoples, capable of spilling out into emotions at any moment; often a hostile attitude towards the Russian people, with whom national oppression was associated.

But back in the summer of 1917, except for Polish, Finnish, and some Ukrainian nationalists, not a single national movement raised the issue of secession from Russia, limiting itself to demands for national-cultural autonomy. The process of the collapse of the empire intensified after October 25–26 and especially after the adoption by the Soviet government of the “Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia” on November 2, 1917. The main postulates of the document were: the equality of all peoples and the right of nations to self-determination, up to and including secession and the formation of independent states. In December 1917, the Soviet government recognized the state independence of Ukraine and Finland. The ideas of national self-determination were also very popular in the international social democratic movement; they were not supported by everyone, even by recognized leaders. According to Rosa Luxemburg, the translation of this provision into real policy threatened Europe with medieval anarchy if each ethnic group demanded the creation of its own state. She wrote: “On all sides, nations and small ethnic groups are claiming their rights to form states. Decayed corpses, filled with the desire for revival, rise from their hundred-year-old graves, and peoples who did not have their own history, who did not know their own statehood, are filled with the desire to create their own state. On the nationalist mountain "Walpurgis Night" figures national movements more often used this call for national self-determination to pursue their own political ambitions. Questions about whether national independence is useful for the people themselves, for their neighbors, for social progress, or whether there are economic conditions for the emergence of a new state and whether it is capable of pursuing its own state policy, not subject to the whims of other countries, as a rule, were not raised and were not discussed.

For the Bolsheviks, the thesis about the right of nations to self-determination was an important argument for winning over to their side at least some of the leaders of various national movements. It sharply contrasted with the slogan of the white movement about “one and indivisible Russia” and became a successful tactical method of Bolshevik propaganda in the national regions. In addition, the implementation of the right of nations to self-determination not only undermined, but exploded from within the entire administrative system of Russia and dealt a final blow to non-Bolshevik local authorities. Thus, the provincial principle of organizing the political space of the country, which provided equal rights to citizens regardless of their nationality and place of residence, was eliminated.

The empire fell apart. On its wreckage in 1917–1919. independent states emerged, recognized by the world community as sovereign. In the Baltics - Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia; in Transcaucasia - Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan; V Central Asia the Bukhara Emirate and the Khanate of Khiva restored their independence; The Ukrainian and Belarusian republics arose. Centrifugal processes affected not only the national outskirts. Regionalism has become a phenomenon similar to national movements in Russian regions proper. It usually refers to socio-political movements expressed in the protest of individual regions against redistributive actions central authorities or who do not support their political orientation. In 1917–1918 the territory of Russia was covered with a network of “independent” republics independent of Bolshevik Moscow: Orenburg, Siberian, Chita, Kuban, Black Sea, etc.

Thus, for the Soviet state, the outbreak of the civil war meant not only the struggle to preserve Soviet power, but also the policy of collecting the lands of the collapsed empire. The end of the war on the territory of Great Russia proper and Siberia led to the concentration of the Fifth Army on the border with Central Asia, and the Eleventh Army approached the border with Transcaucasia. In January 1920, the Transcaucasian Regional Committee of the RCP (b) appealed to the workers of independent Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan to prepare armed uprisings against their governments and appeal to Soviet Russia and the Red Army in order to restore Soviet power in Transcaucasia. Accusing the governments of Georgia and Azerbaijan of collaborating with A.P. Denikin, the Eleventh Army crossed the border. In February 1920, an anti-government uprising broke out in Georgia at the call of the Military Revolutionary Committee, then the rebels turned to the Soviet Russia, and the Red Army supported them. The democratic government of the independent Georgian Republic was overthrown. It was nationalistic in nature, although it was hidden behind social-democratic (Menshevik) slogans. In the spring of 1920, in Baku, the Bolsheviks were able to raise an armed uprising against the Musavat government, formed by the bourgeois Muslim party. In Armenia, the pro-Bolshevik uprising was defeated, but the outbreak of war with Turkey created favorable conditions for the Red Army to enter Armenian territory and establish Soviet power. Three Soviet republics arose in Transcaucasia, which in 1922 united into the Transcaucasian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (TSFSR).

Events developed in a similar way in Central Asia - the uprising of workers and assistance from the Red Army. After the successful Anti-Khan uprising, troops of the Fifth Red Army were brought into Khiva, and in February 1920 the Khorezm People's Soviet Republic was formed. In August of the same year there was an uprising against the Emir of Bukhara. In September, Bukhara fell and the Bukhara People's Soviet Republic was proclaimed. Soviet power was finally established in Turkestan.

It should be noted that the Bolshevik leadership did not have a scientifically developed national policy as an independent program: all its actions were subordinated to the main task - building a socialist society. The national question was perceived by the leaders of the party and state as a private aspect of the class struggle, as its derivative. It was believed that with the solution of the problems of the socialist revolution, national problems would automatically be resolved.

Reflecting on state structure of the future Soviet state, V.I. Lenin wrote to S.G. Shaumyan in 1913: “We are, in principle, against the federation, it weakens economic ties, it is an unsuitable type for one state.” V. I. Lenin stood on the position of the unitary nature of the future state until the fall of 1917, and only the search for allies of the proletariat in the socialist revolution pushed the leader to a compromise. At the III Congress of Soviets (January 1918), the “Declaration of the Rights of the Working and Exploited People” was adopted, which fixed the federal structure of the Russian Soviet Republic. It is interesting that in an interview given by I.V. Stalin in the spring of 1918 included Poland, Finland, Transcaucasia, Ukraine, and Siberia among the possible subjects of the Russian Federation. At the same time, J.V. Stalin emphasized the temporary nature of federalism in Russia, when “... forced tsarist unitarism will be replaced by voluntary federalism... which is destined to play a transitional role to the future socialist unitarism.” This thesis was recorded in the Second Party Program adopted in 1919: “The Federation is a transitional form to the complete unity of the working people of different nations.” Consequently, the Russian Federative Republic, on the one hand, was conceived as a new political form of unification of all territories of the former Russian Empire, on the other hand, the federal structure was considered by the party and its leaders as a temporary phenomenon on the way to “socialist unitarism”, as a tactical compromise with national liberation movements.

The principles of state organization became administrative-territorial and national-territorial, which laid down political, socio-economic inequality between different regions, ensuring the emergence in the future of not only nationalism, but also regionalism.

In the summer of 1919, V.I. Lenin came, as it seemed to him, to a compromise regarding the future state structure: to a combination of the unitary principle and federalism - republics organized according to the Soviet type should form the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, within which autonomies are possible. It turned out that the USSR was based on the federal principle, and the union republics were unitary entities. Later, in a letter to L.B. Kamenev, V.I. Lenin wrote that “...Stalin (who remained a supporter of the unitary Russian state, which would include the rest of the Soviet republics on autonomous rights) agreed to the amendment: “to say instead of ‘joining the RSFSR’ – ‘unification together with the RSFSR’ into the Union of Soviet Republics of Europe and Asia.” And further: “The spirit of concession is clear: we recognize ourselves as equal in rights with the Ukrainian SSR and others, and together and on an equal basis with them we are entering a new union, a new federation...” (V.I. Lenin. Complete. Collected Works. T. 45 . P. 212).

On December 30, 1922, four republics - the Ukrainian SSR, the BSSR, the ZSFSR and the RSFSR signed a union treaty. In many ways, the electoral system, the principle of organizing power, the definition of the main bodies of power and their functions repeated the provisions of the Russian Constitution of 1918, and the agreement became the basis for the first Union Constitution, approved by the II Congress of Soviets of the USSR on January 31, 1924, which stated a single simultaneous citizenship, voluntary the nature of the unification, the immutability of borders, mostly given without taking into account the actual settlement of peoples, and also the declarative right “to leave the union state” was preserved; the mechanism of such “exit” remained outside the sight of legislators and was not defined.

In the special committees and commissions involved in the preparation of the new document, opposing positions clashed on the issues of the powers of the union and republican departments, the competence of the central people's commissariats, and the advisability of establishing a single Soviet citizenship. The Ukrainian Bolsheviks insisted that each individual republic be recognized with broader sovereign rights. Some Tatar communists demanded that the autonomous republics (Tataria, in the form of an autonomous Soviet socialist republic, was part of the RSFSR) should also be elevated to the rank of union ones. Georgian representatives advocated that the three Transcaucasian republics join the USSR separately, and not as a Transcaucasian Federation. Thus, already at the stage of discussion of the first Union Constitution, its weaknesses were clearly identified, and unresolved contradictions served as a breeding ground for the aggravation of the interethnic situation in the second half of the 1980s.

According to the Constitution of 1924, the central government was endowed with very extensive prerogatives: the five People's Commissariats were only allied. The GPU also remained under central subordination. The other five people's commissariats had union-republican status, that is, they existed both in the Center and in the republics. Other people's commissariats, for example, agriculture, education, health, social security etc., were initially exclusively republican in nature. The intention laid down in party documents to give the union state a unitary content over time led to a gradual increase in the importance of the central (union) government bodies, in particular through an increase in the number of the latter. On the eve of the collapse of the USSR, there were about 60 (instead of the original 5) union ministries. The latter reflected the process of centralization of power and the practice of solving virtually all problems of the union republics in the Center. The flip side of this phenomenon was a decrease in their real independence.

In 1923–1925 There was a process of national-territorial delimitation in Central Asia. The peculiarities of this region were, firstly, the traditional absence of clear territorial boundaries between the khanates and the emirate; secondly, in the striped living of Turkic-speaking and Iranian-speaking ethnic groups. The main principles of national-territorial demarcation were the process of identifying titular nations, whose name was given to the new national-territorial entity, and the geographical definition of the boundaries of the new Soviet republics. The Bukhara and Khorezm People's Republics, formerly part of the RSFSR and renamed “socialist”, were merged, and the Uzbek SSR was formed on their basis. In 1925, it, as well as the Turkmen SSR, joined the USSR as union republics.

National-territorial demarcation in Central Asia took the form of soft “ethnic cleansing.” Initially, the titular nations did not constitute the majority of the population in “their” republics. For example, the Tajik Autonomous Region was formed as part of the Uzbek SSR as an autonomy, but in such major cities, like Bukhara and Samarkand, Tajiks (an Iranian-speaking ethnic group) made up the majority of the population. But already in the 1920s. In the Bukhara People's Soviet Republic, school education was translated from Tajik into Uzbek. In commissariats and other authorities, a fine of 5 rubles was introduced for each case of communication in the Tajik language. As a result of such actions, the share of Tajiks rapidly decreased. In Samarkand from 1920 to 1926. the number of Tajiks decreased from 65,824 to 10,700 people. Considering that the civil war had ended by this time, it can be assumed that most of the Tajiks switched to the Uzbek language (which was easy to do, since bilingualism existed in Central Asia) and later, with the introduction of passports, changed their nationality. Those who did not want to do this were forced to migrate from Uzbekistan to their autonomy. Thus, the principle of the forcible creation of mono-ethnic union republics was realized.

The process of allocating autonomous entities was extremely arbitrary and was often not based on the interests of ethnic groups, but was subject to political circumstances. This was especially evident when defining autonomies in Transcaucasia. In 1920, the Revolutionary Committee of Azerbaijan, in its Appeal and Declaration, recognized the territory of Nakhichevan and Zanzegur districts as part of Armenia, and Nagorno-Karabakh’s right to self-determination was recognized. In March 1921, when the Soviet-Turkish agreement was signed, the Nakhichevan autonomy, where half the population was Armenians and which did not even have common border with Azerbaijan, under pressure from Turkey it was recognized as part of Azerbaijan. At a meeting of the Caucasian Bureau of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) on July 4, 1921, a decision was made to incorporate the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region into the Armenian Republic. A little later, on the direct instructions of I.V. Stalin, Nagorno-Karabakh, in which Armenians made up 95% of the population, was transferred to Azerbaijan.

In the 1930s National construction in the USSR continued. According to the Constitution of 1936, the USSR included 11 union republics and 33 autonomies. The Kazakh SSR and the Kirghiz SSR left the RSFSR; back in 1929, Tajik autonomy was transformed into a union republic; The TSFSR also collapsed, and three union republics emerged from it as independent ones - Armenian, Azerbaijan and Georgian. After the implementation of the secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in 1939, the reunification of Western Ukraine and the Ukrainian SSR, Western Belarus and the BSSR took place. Bessarabia, torn away from Romania, merged with the Moldavian autonomy (which was part of the Ukrainian SSR), and in August 1940 the Moldavian SSR arose, which became part of the USSR. In the summer of 1940, the three Baltic republics did the same - LitSSR, LatSSR, ESSR. In the fall of 1939, the Soviet-Finnish war began, and in 1940 the Karelo-Finnish SSR was formed, which did not last long. After its liquidation, the number of union republics (15) remained unchanged until the collapse of the USSR. In the early 1940s. The USSR, with the exception of Finland and part of Poland, was restored within the framework of the collapsed Russian Empire.

Assessing the Constitution of 1936, J.V. Stalin noted that a state had been created whose collapse was impossible, since the withdrawal of one part of it would lead to the death of all. The role of original detonators was assigned to the autonomies that were part of many union republics. This forecast was fully justified in the second half of the 1980s, when it was the autonomies that raised the question of their equality with the union republics, and then the collapse of the USSR followed.

The thirties and forties passed in the national regions under the banners of collectivization, industrialization and the cultural revolution. There was a leveling out of national economies. This was accompanied by the destruction of the traditional way of life and the imposition of a single Soviet (not Russian!) standard. A system has emerged for the redistribution of financial, material and human resources in favor of the least industrially developed regions and, above all, the national outskirts. For this purpose, the map was even redrawn: Rudny Altai, traditionally developed by the Russians since the 18th century, was transferred to the KazSSR and became the basis for the creation of a local industrial base. Russia was a natural donor. Despite massive assistance, industrialization in Central Asia and the North Caucasus almost did not change the economic and cultural way of life of the local population, dating back thousands of years of tradition, or their orientation towards the values ​​of the Islamic world.

Collectivization, accompanied by the creation of monocultural economies and also the destruction of the usual way of life, in short term caused powerful psychological stress, impoverishment, hunger, and disease. Economic equalization was accompanied by interference in the spiritual sphere: atheistic propaganda was carried out, and the clergy was subjected to repression. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that the Russians, who also retained many features of the traditional way of life, were subjected to powerful pressure from the Soviet government, and were also forced to turn from rural population to the townspeople.

The war years were accompanied by mass deportations of peoples suspected of treason. This process began in the summer of 1941, when, after accusing the two million German people of allegedly committing treason, the Republic of Germans - the Volga region - was liquidated, and all Germans were deported to the east of the country. In 1943–1944 Mass resettlement of other peoples of the European and Asian parts of the USSR was carried out. The accusations were standard: collaboration with the Nazis or sympathy for the Japanese. They were able to return to their native places, and not all of them, after 1956.

The “carrot” of national policy was “indigenization,” that is, the placement of people whose nationality was in the name of the republic to leading, responsible positions. The conditions for obtaining education were made easier for national personnel. Thus, for every 100 scientific workers in 1989, there were 9.7 Russian graduate students; Belarusians – 13.4; Kyrgyz – 23.9; Turkmen – 26.2 people. National personnel were guaranteed successful advancement through the ranks. National affiliation “determined” the professional, mental, and business qualities of people. In fact, the state itself introduced nationalism and incited national hatred. And even the emergence of a European-educated population in national republics, the creation of modern industry and infrastructure, international recognition of scientists and cultural figures from national regions was often perceived as something natural and did not contribute to the growth of trust between peoples, because totalitarian methods excluded the possibility of choice, were of a violent nature, and because they were rejected by society.

The logic of the development of perestroika processes raised the question of the pace of democratization of Soviet society, as well as the payment of each republic for socio-economic transformations. The question arose about the redistribution of federal revenues by the Center in favor of the least developed republics. At the First Congress of Deputies of the USSR (1989), the Baltic republics for the first time openly raised the question of the relationship between the Central (Union) and republican authorities. The main demand of the Baltic deputies was the need to provide the republics with greater independence and economic sovereignty. At the same time, options for republican self-financing were being worked out. But the question of greater independence for the republics rested on the problem of the pace of economic and political reforms (perestroika) in different national and cultural regions of the USSR. The Center showed inflexibility in trying to unify these processes. The accelerated progress of perestroika transformations in Armenia and the Baltic states was restrained by the Center's slowness in the Central Asian region. Thus, the persisting cultural and economic heterogeneity of Soviet society, the different mentality of the peoples that made it up, objectively determined the different pace and depth of economic reforms and democratization. Attempts by the Center to “average” this process, to create a unified model of transformation for the entire state, failed. By the winter of 1991, the Baltic republics raised the question of political sovereignty. Forceful pressure on them: the events in Vilnius in January 1991, provocations in Latvia and Estonia cast doubt on the ability of the central government to continue the course towards democratization and openness of Soviet society, proclaimed in April 1985.

Even earlier, at the beginning of 1988, the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region, which was part of Azerbaijan, announced national violations. The reaction to this a week later was anti-Armenian pogroms in Sumgait. As a result, according to some sources, 32 people were killed and more than two hundred were injured. There was no serious reaction from either Baku or Moscow. This was the beginning of the Karabakh conflict that continues to this day. The next year, 1989, brought new pogroms: in New Uzgen and Osh. And again there was no reaction from the Center. Impunity provoked new massacres on ethnic grounds. The dynamics of the growth of centers of interethnic tension shows that in December 1988 there were 15 of them in the Union, in March 1991 - 76, and a year later - 180. The decline in the authority of the authorities and the force of law ensured for many years instability of the situation throughout the Soviet and post-Soviet space. Gradually, a double standard in resolving the issue of self-determination began to appear more and more clearly: this right became the privilege of only the union republics, but not their autonomies. Although everyone recognized the arbitrary nature of the allocation of union and autonomous entities, and sometimes the artificiality of their borders, nevertheless, through the actions of the central and republican authorities, a conviction was formed in the public consciousness of the “illegality” of the demands of the autonomies. Thus, it became obvious that the equality of peoples and the right of nations to self-determination declared in the Constitution were subject to political circumstances.

An attempt to save the Union can be considered the holding of an All-Union referendum on the integrity of the Union on March 17, 1991; this no longer had any real consequences. In the spring and especially summer of 1991, almost all the union republics held their referendums, and the population voted for national independence. Thus, the results of the all-Union referendum were annulled. Another attempt to save the Union can be considered a change in position regarding the signing of a new Union Treaty. M. S. Gorbachev held repeated consultations with the heads of the republics. It seemed that this process could end with the conclusion of a new union treaty, the essence of which would be the redistribution of functions between the central and republican authorities in favor of the latter. Thus, the USSR, from a virtually unitary state, had a chance to become a full-fledged federation. But this did not happen: the fragile process was interrupted by the events of August 1991. For the union republics, the victory of the putsch meant a return to the previous unitary state and the end of democratic reforms. the limit of trust in the central government was exhausted, the Union collapsed.

The current collapse of the USSR, although in many ways reminiscent of the collapse of the Russian Empire, is qualitatively different. The Soviet Union was restored within the empire through provocations and the use of military force, which contradicts the principles of democracy, to which most of the new states have declared their commitment. In the early 1920s. the peoples that made up the former empire could still trust the new leadership of Moscow, which supposedly abandoned the imperial, unificationist policy. But the new existence within the Union did not solve the previous national problems; it increased their number. The reasons for the explosion of nationalism in the USSR were also some results of the implemented national policy. Soviet national policy led to the emergence of national identity and its strengthening among many ethnic groups that did not have it before. Having proclaimed the slogan of the destruction of the national division of humanity, the regime built and strengthened nations in the territories artificially determined by it. The nationality enshrined in the passport tied ethnic groups to a certain territory, dividing them into “indigenous people” and “outsiders.” Despite the subordinate position of the republics to the Center, they had the prerequisites for independent existence. During the Soviet period, a national elite was formed in them, national personnel were trained, “their” territory was determined, and a modern economy was created. All this also contributed to the collapse of the USSR: the former union republics could now manage without cash receipts from the Center, especially since the union treasury very quickly became scarce with the beginning of reforms. In addition, some peoples only received their national statehood for the first time during the years of Soviet power (first in the form of union republics, and after the collapse of the USSR - independent states: Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, etc.), not counting a short period of independence in 1917–1920 Their states are very young, there are no traditions of strong statehood, hence their desire to establish themselves and show their complete independence, first of all, from Moscow.

The collapse of the Russian Empire, and later the USSR, fits quite logically into the general historical picture of global world changes: the 20th century. In general, it became the century of the collapse of empires that arose in previous eras. One of the reasons for this process is modernization, the transition of many states to the rails of an industrial and post-industrial society. It is much easier to carry out economic and political transformations in culturally and mentally homogeneous societies. Then there will be no problems with the pace and depth of transformation. our state both at the beginning of the twentieth century and in the 1980s. was a conglomerate of various economic and cultural types and mentalities. In addition, although modernization in general strengthens integration tendencies, they come into conflict with the growth of national self-awareness and the desire for national independence. In conditions of authoritarian or totalitarian regimes, infringement of national interests, this contradiction is inevitable. Therefore, as soon as the hoops of autocracy and totalitarianism were loosened and transformative, democratic tendencies intensified, the threat of the collapse of the multinational state arose. And although the collapse of the USSR is in many ways natural, over the past 70 years, and even over the previous centuries, the peoples living in the Eurasian space have accumulated a lot of experience life together. They have a lot general history, numerous human connections. Under favorable conditions, this can promote natural, albeit slow integration. And it seems that the existence of the CIS is a step towards the common future of the peoples of the once united country.

On at the moment There is no consensus on what the prerequisites for the collapse of the USSR were. However, most scientists agree that their beginnings were laid in the very ideology of the Bolsheviks, who, albeit in many ways formally, recognized the right of nations to self-determination. The weakening of central power provoked the formation of new power centers on the outskirts of the state. It is worth noting that similar processes occurred at the very beginning of the 20th century, during the period of revolutions and the collapse of the Russian Empire.

Briefly speaking, the reasons for the collapse of the USSR are as follows:

A crisis provoked by the planned nature of the economy and leading to a shortage of many consumer goods;

Unsuccessful, largely ill-conceived reforms that led to sharp deterioration standard of living;

Massive dissatisfaction of the population with interruptions in food supplies;

The ever-increasing gap in living standards between citizens of the USSR and citizens of countries in the capitalist camp;

Exacerbation of national contradictions;

Weakening of central power;

The processes that led to the collapse of the USSR became apparent already in the 80s. Against the backdrop of a general crisis, which only deepened by the beginning of the 90s, there was a growth in nationalist tendencies in almost all union republics. The first to leave the USSR were: Lithuania, Estonia and Latvia. They are followed by Georgia, Azerbaijan, Moldova and Ukraine.

The collapse of the USSR was the result of the events of August - December 1991. After the August putsch, the activities of the CPSU party in the country were suspended. The Supreme Soviet of the USSR and the Congress of People's Deputies lost power. The last Congress in history took place in September 1991 and declared self-dissolution. During this period, the State Council of the USSR became the highest authority, headed by Gorbachev, the first and only president of the USSR. The attempts he made in the fall to prevent both the economic and political collapse of the USSR did not bring success. As a result, on December 8, 1991, after the signing of the Belovezhskaya Agreement by the heads of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, the Soviet Union ceased to exist. At the same time, the formation of the CIS - the Commonwealth of Independent States - took place. The collapse of the Soviet Union was the largest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century, with global consequences.

Here are just the main consequences of the collapse of the USSR:

A sharp decline in production in all countries of the former USSR and a drop in the standard of living of the population;

The territory of Russia has shrunk by a quarter;

Access to seaports has again become difficult;

The population of Russia has decreased - in fact, by half;

The emergence of numerous national conflicts and the emergence of territorial claims between the former republics of the USSR;

Globalization began - processes gradually gained momentum, turning the world into a single political, informational, economic system;

The world has become unipolar, and the United States remains the only superpower.

Political reforms of the 90s. 20th century in Russia

After the collapse of the USSR in 1991, changes occurred in all areas of life in Russia. One of the most important events last decade XX century was the formation of a new Russian statehood.

Presidential power. The central place in the system of power of modern Russia is occupied by the institution of the President, who, according to the 1993 Constitution, is the head of state, and not the executive branch (as it was until December 1993).

Almost none important question life of the state and society cannot be resolved without the consent and approval of the head of state.

The President is the guarantor of the Constitution and can take any measures to protect the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Russia. The Government of the country is accountable to the President, the composition and main directions of whose activities he determines and whose work he actually directs. The head of state also heads the Security Council. He is the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the country's Armed Forces, and can, if necessary, introduce a state of emergency, martial law or special state.

This scope of the President's powers is fully consistent with the historical traditions of the highest authorities in Russia. Some opponents of strong presidential power sometimes call this regime an elective monarchy. However, despite the full powers of the head of state, his power is sufficiently limited by a system of checks and balances.

From Soviets to parliamentarism. The main political event of the 90s. was the dismantling of the Soviet system of power and its replacement with the separation of powers - legislative, executive, judicial.

Using the historical experience of parliamentarism in Russia at the beginning of the 20th century, the Constitution of 1993 completed the process of formation of a new Russian parliamentarism that began during the years of perestroika.

The Russian parliament is the Federal Assembly, consisting of two chambers - the Federation Council (upper) and the State Duma (lower). The Upper House calls elections for the President and, if necessary, decides on his removal from office; approves the decision of the head of state to introduce martial law or a state of emergency; appoints and dismisses the Prosecutor General and members of the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Arbitration Court of Russia. The main subjects of jurisdiction of the State Duma are the approval of the composition of the Government and the adoption of the laws of the country. Both houses of parliament approve the federal budget and national taxes and fees; ratify those signed by Russia international agreements; declare war and make peace. All these decisions are subject to approval by the President.

Government. Executive power in the country is exercised by the Government of Russia. It develops and implements the federal budget after approval; ensures the implementation of a unified state financial, credit and monetary policy in the country; determines the parameters for the development of culture, science, education, healthcare, social security, and ecology; ensures the implementation of the country's defense and foreign policy; cares about the observance of law and order, the rights and freedoms of citizens. He is also responsible for the disposal of federal property.

The activities of the Government, unlike the pre-revolutionary and Soviet periods of Russian history, are not only directly dependent on the instructions and orders of the head of state, but also under significant control by parliament.

Judicial power. Judicial power in the country is exercised through constitutional, civil, administrative and criminal proceedings. The Constitutional Court makes, at the request of the authorities, a final decision on the compliance of federal and regional laws and regulations with the Constitution of the country; decrees of the President of the country and heads of the constituent entities of the Federation. At the request of citizens, he resolves the issue of violation of their constitutional rights and freedoms. If necessary, he gives an interpretation of those provisions of the Constitution that are not regulated by special laws and other documents.

The Supreme Court is the highest court in civil, criminal and administrative cases.

Higher arbitration court is the highest court for resolving economic disputes.

The prosecutor's office monitors compliance with the laws of the country both by citizens and by state and public bodies.

Center and regions. Russia is a federation consisting of 88 subjects. The political and economic rights granted by the federal authorities to the regions in the early 90s led to a significant weakening of the role of the Center. The laws adopted locally and even their own constitutional acts were in conflict with the federal Constitution and the laws of the federation. The creation of a network of provincial banks and even the constituent entities of the Federation’s own “gold reserve” began. In certain regions of the country, not only did the transfer of funds to the federal budget cease, but a ban was also introduced on the export of various types of products outside the territories and regions. There were voices about giving administrative borders (especially national regions) the status of state ones. The Russian language has ceased to be recognized as the state language in a number of republics. All this gave rise to a dangerous trend of transformation of the federation into a confederation and even the possibility of its collapse.

The situation in Chechnya was especially alarming, where “state independence” was proclaimed, and power essentially passed into the hands of criminal and extremist groups. A weakened federal center, having failed to achieve implementation here through political means federal legislation, took forceful action. During the first (1994-1996) and second (from the summer of 1999) military campaigns in Chechnya, it was possible to ensure control of the central authorities over the territory of this subject of the Federation. But the production and social sphere of the region was completely destroyed during protracted hostilities. The losses were significant both among the federal forces and among the local population. However, emerging in the 90s. the tendency for Chechnya to secede from the Russian Federation was stopped.

Local government. Developing traditions local government established during the zemstvo (1864) and city (1870) reforms, the 1993 Constitution gave local authorities the right independent decision issues of local importance, ownership, use and disposal of municipal property. The main forms of local self-government are referendums (national expressions of will) and elections of heads of deputies of municipalities. During referendums of the population, issues of changing the boundaries and belonging of a city or village to a particular district or region are also resolved. Local authorities independently manage municipal property, form and execute the local budget, determine the articles and amounts of local taxes and fees, protect public order, etc. In 1998, Russia ratified the European Charter of Local Self-Government, in which local governments are recognized as one from the basic foundations of a democratic system. An important event was the establishment by municipalities of the Congress of Municipal Entities of the Russian Federation to coordinate the efforts of local governments in defending their interests before regional and central authorities.

Thus, in the 90s. in Russia, a legitimate basis for Russian statehood was created, built on democratic principles, and a new system of relations between the Center and the regions was tested.

As perestroika progressed, the national problems.

In 1989 and especially in 1990-1991. happened bloody clashes in Central Asia(Fergana, Dushanbe, Osh and a number of other areas). The Caucasus, primarily South Ossetia and Abkhazia, was an area of ​​intense ethnic armed conflict. In 1990-1991 V South Ossetia, in essence, a real war was going on, in which only heavy artillery, aircraft and tanks were not used.

Confrontation also took place in Moldova, where the population of the Gagauz and Transnistrian regions protested against the infringement of their national rights and in the Baltic states, where part of the Russian-speaking population opposed the leadership of the republics.

In the Baltic republics, Ukraine, and Georgia, it takes on acute forms struggle for independence, for leaving the USSR. In early 1990, after Lithuania declared its independence and negotiations over Nagorno-Karabakh stalled, it became obvious that the central government was unable to use economic ties in the process of radically renegotiating federal relations, which was the only way to prevent, or even though would stop the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Collapse of the USSR. Formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States

Prerequisites for the collapse of the USSR.

1) A deep socio-economic crisis that has engulfed the entire country. The crisis led to a severance of economic ties and gave rise to a desire among the republics to “save themselves alone.”

2) The destruction of the Soviet system means a sharp weakening of the center.

3) The collapse of the CPSU.

4) Exacerbation of interethnic relations. National conflicts undermined state unity, becoming one of the reasons for the destruction of the union statehood.

5) Republican separatism and political ambition of local leaders.

The union center can no longer retain power democratically and resorts to military force: Tbilisi - September 1989, Baku - January 1990, Vilnius and Riga - January 1991, Moscow - August 1991. In addition - interethnic conflicts in Central Asia (1989-1990): Fergana, Dushanbe, Osh etc.

The last straw that pushed the party and state leadership of the USSR to act was the threat of signing a new Union Treaty, which was developed during negotiations between representatives of the republics in Novo-Ogarevo.

August 1991 coup and its failure.

August 1991 - Gorbachev was on vacation in Crimea. The signing of a new Union Treaty was scheduled for August 20. August 18, a number of senior officials The USSR offers Gorbachev to introduce a state of emergency throughout the country, but receives a refusal from him. In order to disrupt the signing of the Union Treaty and maintain their powers of power, part of the top party and state leadership tried to seize power. On August 19, a state of emergency was introduced in the country (for 6 months). Troops were brought into the streets of Moscow and a number of other large cities.

But the coup failed. The population of the country basically refused to support the State Emergency Committee, while the army did not want to use force against its citizens. Already on August 20, barricades grew up around the “White House”, on which there were several tens of thousands of people, and some military units went over to the side of the defenders. The resistance was led by Russian President B.N. Yeltsin. The actions of the State Emergency Committee were very negatively perceived abroad, where statements were immediately made about the suspension of assistance to the USSR.

The coup was extremely poorly organized and there was no active operational leadership. Already on August 22, he was defeated, and the members of the State Emergency Committee themselves were arrested. Interior Minister Pugo shot himself. The main reason for the failure of the coup was the determination of the masses to defend their political freedoms.

The final stage of the collapse of the USSR(September - December 1991).

The attempted coup sharply accelerated the collapse of the USSR, led to Gorbachev's loss of authority and power, and to a noticeable increase in Yeltsin's popularity. The activities of the CPSU were suspended and then terminated. Gorbachev left his post Secretary General The Central Committee of the CPSU dissolved the Central Committee. In the days that followed the putsch, 8 republics declared their complete independence, and three Baltic republics achieved recognition from the USSR. There was a sharp reduction in the competence of the KGB, and its reorganization was announced.

On December 1, 1991, more than 80% of the population of Ukraine spoke in favor of the independence of their republic.

December 8, 1991 - Belovezhskaya Agreement (Yeltsin, Kravchuk, Shushkevich): the termination of the Union Treaty of 1922 and the end of the activities of state structures of the former Union were announced. Russia, Ukraine and Belarus reached an agreement on the creation Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). The three states invited all former republics to join the CIS.

On December 21, 1991, 8 republics joined the CIS. The Declaration on the cessation of the existence of the USSR and on the principles of the CIS activities was adopted. On December 25, Gorbachev announced his resignation as president due to the disappearance of the state. In 1994, Azerbaijan and Georgia joined the CIS.

During the existence of the CIS, more than 900 fundamental legal acts have been signed. They related to the single ruble space, open borders, defense, space, information exchange, security, customs policy, etc.

Review questions:

1. The main reasons that led to the aggravation of interethnic relations in the USSR by the beginning of the 1990s are listed.

2. Name the regions in which hotbeds of tension have developed. In what forms did national conflicts unfold there?

3. How did the USSR collapse?

Exacerbation interethnic conflicts. In the mid-80s, the USSR included 15 union republics: Armenian, Azerbaijan, Belarusian, Georgian, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Latvian, Lithuanian, Moldavian, RSFSR, Tajik, Turkmen, Uzbek, Ukrainian and Estonian. Over 270 million people lived on its territory - representatives of over a hundred nations and nationalities. According to the official leadership of the country, in the USSR the national question was resolved in principle and the republics were actually aligned in terms of the level of political, socio-economic and cultural development. Meanwhile, the inconsistency of national policies has given rise to numerous contradictions in interethnic relations. Under conditions of glasnost, these contradictions grew into open conflicts. The economic crisis that engulfed the entire national economic complex aggravated interethnic tensions.

The inability of the central authorities to cope with economic difficulties caused growing discontent in the republics. It intensified due to worsening pollution problems environment, deterioration of the environmental situation due to the accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. As before, local dissatisfaction was generated by the insufficient attention of the union authorities to the needs of the republics, and the dictates of the center in resolving local issues. The forces uniting local opposition forces were popular fronts, new Political parties and movements (“Rukh” in Ukraine, “Sąjūdis” in Lithuania, etc.). They became the main exponents of the ideas of state isolation of the union republics and their secession from the USSR. The country's leadership turned out to be unprepared to solve the problems caused by interethnic and interethnic conflicts and the growth of the separatist movement in the republics.

In 1986, mass rallies and demonstrations against Russification took place in Almaty (Kazakhstan). The reason for them was the appointment of G. Kolbin, a Russian by nationality, as the first secretary of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan. Open forms caused public discontent in the Baltic republics, Ukraine, and Belarus. The public, led by the popular fronts, demanded the publication of the Soviet-German treaties of 1939, the publication of documents on the deportations of the population from the Baltic states and from western regions Ukraine and Belarus during the period of collectivization, about mass graves of victims of repression near Kurapaty (Belarus). Armed clashes based on interethnic conflicts have become more frequent.

In 1988, hostilities began between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, a territory populated predominantly by Armenians, but which was part of the AzSSR. An armed conflict between the Uzbeks and Meskhetian Turks broke out in Fergana. The center of interethnic clashes was Novy Uzen (Kazakhstan). The appearance of thousands of refugees was one of the results of the conflicts that took place. In April 1989, mass demonstrations took place in Tbilisi for several days. The main demands of the demonstrators were democratic reforms and independence of Georgia. The Abkhaz population advocated revising the status of the Abkhaz ASSR and separating it from the Georgian SSR.

"Parade of Sovereignties". Since the late 80s, the movement for secession from the USSR in the Baltic republics has intensified. At first, opposition forces insisted on recognition native language in the republics, official, on taking measures to limit the number of people moving here from other regions of the country, and on ensuring real independence of local authorities. Now the demand for separating the economy from the all-Union national economic complex has taken first place in their programs. It was proposed to concentrate management national economy in local administrative structures and recognize the priority of republican laws over all-Union laws. In the fall of 1988, representatives of the popular fronts won elections to the central and local authorities of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania. They declared their main task to be the achievement of complete independence and the creation of sovereign states. In November 1988, the Declaration of State Sovereignty was approved by the Supreme Council of the Estonian SSR. Identical documents were adopted by Lithuania, Latvia, the Azerbaijan SSR (1989) and the Moldavian SSR (1990). Following the announcements of sovereignty, the elections of presidents of the former Soviet republics took place.

On June 12, 1990, the First Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR adopted the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Russia. It legislated the priority of republican laws over union laws. B.N. Yeltsin became the first president of the Russian Federation, and A.V. Rutskaya became the vice-president.

The declarations of the union republics on sovereignty were placed at the center political life the question of the continued existence of the Soviet Union. The IV Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR (December 1990) spoke in favor of preserving the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and its transformation into a democratic federal state. The congress adopted a resolution “On the general concept of the union treaty and the procedure for its conclusion.” The document noted that the basis of the renewed Union would be the principles set out in the republican declarations: equality of all citizens and peoples, the right to self-determination and democratic development, territorial integrity. In accordance with the resolution of the congress, an all-Union referendum was held to resolve the issue of preserving the renewed Union as a federation of sovereign republics. 76.4% of the total number of people participating in the vote were in favor of preserving the USSR.

Final political crisis. In April - May 1991, negotiations between M. S. Gorbachev and the leaders of nine union republics on the issue of a new union treaty took place in Novo-Ogarevo (the residence of the President of the USSR near Moscow). All participants in the negotiations supported the idea of ​​​​creating a renewed Union and signing such an agreement. His project provided for the creation of the Union of Sovereign States (USS) as a democratic federation of equal Soviet sovereign republics. Changes were planned in the structure of government and administration, the adoption of a new Constitution, and changes in the electoral system. The signing of the agreement was scheduled for August 20, 1991.

The publication and discussion of the draft new union treaty deepened the split in society. Supporters of M. S. Gorbachev saw in this act an opportunity to reduce the level of confrontation and prevent danger civil war in the country. Leaders of the movement Democratic Russia“put forward the idea of ​​signing a temporary agreement for up to one year. During this time it was proposed to hold elections in Constituent Assembly and submit to him for decision the question of the system and procedure for the formation of all-Union government bodies. A group of social scientists protested against the draft treaty. The document prepared for signing was regarded as the result of the center’s capitulation to the demands of national-separatist forces in the republics. Opponents of the new treaty rightly feared that the dismantling of the USSR would cause the collapse of the existing national economic complex and a deepening of the economic crisis. A few days before the signing of the new union treaty, opposition forces made an attempt to put an end to the policy of reforms and stop the collapse of the state.

On the night of August 19, USSR President M. S. Gorbachev was removed from power. Group statesmen announced the impossibility of M. S. Gorbachev to perform presidential duties due to his state of health. A state of emergency was introduced in the country for a period of 6 months, rallies and strikes were prohibited. It was announced the creation of the State Emergency Committee - the State Committee for state of emergency in the USSR. It included Vice President G. I. Yanaev, Prime Minister V. S. Pavlov, KGB Chairman V. A. Kryuchkov, Minister of Defense D. T. Yazov and other representatives of government agencies. The State Emergency Committee declared its task to overcome the economic and political crisis, interethnic and civil confrontation and anarchy. Behind these words was the main task: the restoration of the order that existed in the USSR before 1985.

Moscow became the center of the August events. Troops were brought into the city. A curfew was established. Broad sections of the population, including many party workers, did not provide support to the members of the State Emergency Committee. Russian President B.N. Yeltsin called on citizens to support the legally elected authorities. The actions of the State Emergency Committee were regarded by him as an anti-constitutional coup. It was announced that the transition to control Russian President all all-Union executive authorities located on the territory of the republic.

On August 22, members of the State Emergency Committee were arrested. One of B. N. Yeltsin’s decrees terminated the activities of the CPSU. On August 23, its existence as a ruling state structure was put to an end.

The events of August 19-22 brought the collapse of the Soviet Union closer. At the end of August, Ukraine, and then other republics, announced the creation of independent states.

In December 1991, a meeting of the leaders of three sovereign states took place in Belovezhskaya Pushcha (BSSR) - Russia (B. N. Yeltsin), Ukraine (L. M. Kravchuk) and Belarus (S. S. Shushkevich). On December 8, they announced the termination of the 1922 union treaty and the end of the activities of state structures of the former Union. At the same time, an agreement was reached on the creation of the CIS - the Commonwealth of Independent States. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ceased to exist. In December of the same year, eight more former republics joined the Commonwealth of Independent States (Alma-Ata Agreement).

Perestroika, conceived and implemented by some party and state leaders with the goal of democratic changes in all spheres of society, has ended. Its main result was the collapse of the once powerful multinational state and the end of the Soviet period in the history of the Fatherland. In the former republics of the USSR, presidential republics were formed and operated. Among the leaders of sovereign states were many former party and Soviet workers. Each of the former union republics independently looked for ways out of the crisis. In the Russian Federation, these tasks had to be solved by President B. N. Yeltsin and the democratic forces that supported him.

Chapter 42. Russia in the 90s of the XX century.

Since the end of 1991, a new state has appeared on the international political arena - Russia, Russian Federation(RF). It included 89 subjects of the Federation, including 21 autonomous republics. The Russian leadership had to continue the course towards democratic transformation society and the creation of a rule of law state. Among the top priorities was taking measures to get the country out of the economic and political crisis. It was necessary to create new bodies for managing the national economy and form Russian statehood.