USSR [Theme] Page 4

There is a great idea on the side of the USSR.

© Yuri Dubey

The third lesson of the collapse of the Soviet Union is that after what happened to the Soviet Union, it was necessary once and for all to get rid of the beautiful-hearted, Manilov attitude towards world politics, and our place in this world politics. When the Soviet Union collapsed, many thought that the main reasons were within. But - there were global stakeholders who played to the collapse of our empire. Yes, we have proposed peaceful coexistence. But in the West there was an elite, and they did not hide it, which considered peaceful coexistence as an instrument for the future collapse of the Soviet Union, nullifying it as a nuclear power, as the second most powerful economic power. I was told this bluntly: peaceful coexistence is our instrument of your demise.

For a very long time I avoided and even protested against the comparison of the situation in America with the situation in the late USSR. I thought this comparison was inadequate. And the reality of me has led to the fact that it is more and more reminiscent. Judge for yourself: the crisis situation in the economy, in politics, the split in society, disbelief in the government, in institutions, and at the same time the country is led ...

30 years - after the collapse of the USSR. In the rhetoric of the West, we have been defeated. We must not fall into their rhetoric. We were not defeated. Our army was not defeated. The enemy was not in Moscow. No structure was conquered. It's our internal business. We had a revolution. But beyond that, we had the general mood of the Soviet people that we had to end the Cold War. Gorbachev expressed this feeling. And we have proposed a new construct to Europe and the world: let's try a world without annexations and indemnities. What have we received in return in these 30 years? We received bases in Estonia, the Baltic States (1.5 minutes of approach to St. Petersburg), troops in Georgia, Ukraine. We must not forget that the current round of confrontation, its initiator is the West.

... socialism as an alternative to capitalism was blown away pretty quickly. It is now generally accepted that the "great social utopias" suffered a final collapse at the end of the last century, with the destruction of the USSR and the socialist bloc. In fact, already in the sixties, the same USSR was not a "society of victorious utopia" in any way. It was a completely recognizable society of under-consumption, reminiscent of similar societies in the middle-developed countries of the Third World. The difference with the "third world" was that the Soviet people suffered not from a lack of money, but from a lack of goods. But the essence was the same: the basic social structures of Soviet society were, in general, similar to those in the West, only there were fewer resources. The Soviet people suffered severely from this, as people suffer from any discrepancy. By the way, now that Russia has finally been thrown into the third world, there is more suffering from hunger, cold, hopelessness, but less from inconsistency. There is poverty all around, there is also poverty inside, there are no prospects, but there are no false hopes either. "Everything is smooth." The world is in balance.

Concealing death so that there was no publicity.

The eighties of the twentieth century became a turning point in the modern history and fate of Russia. The author of the book is a direct participant in the events described, in those years the Ambassador-at-Large, the head of the USSR delegation to the Stockholm Conference on Disarmament in Europe, talks about how the foreign policy of the Soviet Union changed during the transition period from Brezhnev to Gorbachev and what changes began in the Foreign Ministry with the arrival of the new minister E. Shevardnadze. You will learn at the cost of what efforts and confrontations the new policy of the USSR and the United States in the field of international security was formed and what actually happened then, in 1983-1987, behind the Kremlin walls ...

World fascism is a hydra, a monster with several heads. Having cut off the head of German fascism, the world got rid of only Hitler ... On a sixth of the earth, in the USSR, an even more cruel, more man-hating fascism survived and triumphed over its rival - Stalinist, communist fascism!

The war ended for me in May '44. Having lost my left arm at the front, I lay in a military hospital for a long time. In February 1945, I received a call from the USSR Academy of Sciences to Leningrad. The vice-president of the Academy said that there is an intention to send me to the Pushkin Reserve as its director and head of restoration work. I thanked. Everything ended well in all instances.

suicide I personally believe that the Soviet Union was driven to suicide by the elite. Although I could have lived.

But again, the question arises: what does the Soviet Union have to do with it? Oh yes, on September 17, 1939, we also entered the territory of Poland, committing a terrible crime against the Polish statehood. What norms are we talking about at all? In this case, there are four of them: the Riga Peace Treaty of 1921, the Paris Briand-Kellogg Pact, the non-aggression pact between Poland and the USSR of 1932 and, finally, the Convention on the Definition of Aggression of 1933. Document titles are large-scale. And if you do not know what they contain, probably, you really just need to sprinkle ashes on your head, the whole country to fall to its knees and ask the proud Polish gentry to forgive us. But as soon as you open the first of these documents, it will immediately turn out that there is nothing to repent of, in general. And Poland, to put it mildly, distorts the cards. Let's start with the fundamental document in all this history - the Convention on the Definition of Aggression. Today, those Poles who call on the peoples of Russia to repent for 1939, for some reason forget to clarify that this document was proposed by Moscow, that is, the Soviet Union. The convention has an important point: "The invasion of its armed forces, at least without declaring war on the territory of another state." That is, the entry of troops of the Workers' and Peasants' Red Army into the territory of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus could be regarded as a violation. But this convention, despite all the proposals of Moscow, was never adopted, which means that it did not become a document of international law. This happened thanks to the position of Great Britain and France. And Poland was not eager to support this document. But that's half the trouble. The problem is that a convention cannot exist on its own. It was to be part of a thrice international agreement on arms limitation. You probably won't be surprised if I say that the agreement was not signed. That is, the Soviet Union is accused of violating the main provisions of international law, although these provisions are spelled out in documents that were not adopted, and at the same time proposed to adopt them by the USSR. Now let's turn to the Briand-Kellogg Pact, which the Soviet Union brazenly ignored in order to destroy Polish statehood. It has a clause condemning war as a means of settling international disputes. Awesome. Let's admit that there was indeed a misunderstanding between Moscow and Warsaw. So what happens? In September 1939, Germany attacks Poland, war begins, then Great Britain and France declare war on Germany. And then comes September 17, 1939. The Soviet Union introduces troops into the territory of Western Belarus, Western Ukraine. Did Great Britain and France declare war on the Soviet Union for violating the Briand-Kellogg Pact? Of course not. Let's ask a more complicated question: did Poland declare war on the Soviet Union? You will be surprised, but not only was war not declared on the Soviet Union, the Polish army was ordered categorically not to engage in hostilities with the troops of the Red Army. In other words, the Polish government then, in 1939, did not regard the entry of Red Army troops into the territory of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus as a violation of the Briand-Kellogg Pact. <... > And since the Briand-Kellogg Pact does not add up very well, they immediately occupy the following line of defense: the non-aggression pact between Poland and the Soviet Union of 1932 was violated. <... > The defeat of Poland in the war with Germany automatically meant the termination of the 1932 treaty. Agree, if one of the two partners by the standards of international law ceases to exist, how and at what expense should the treaty operate? For some reason, Polish political scientists and experts do not want to categorically talk about this. How they are not going to talk about the fact that the Soviet Union in the autumn of 1939 complied with absolutely all the norms of international law: the government of the USSR summoned the Polish ambassador in Moscow and notified him that in connection with the defeat of Poland in the war with the Third Reich, the 1932 treaty was now terminated.

It only seems that it would not have been difficult for a Russian emigrant to pass himself off as a Soviet person. The fact that they spoke the same language is a persistent myth. In the twenty years that have passed after the revolution, the language of the inhabitants of the USSR has been enriched with so many new words, expressions and abbreviations that the emigrants often did not understand what they were talking about at all. A simple example. They put a couple of potatoes on the table in front of you and ask the question: "Where should the commander be?" Anyone who saw the film "Chapaev", of course, immediately confidently answered: "Of course, ahead, on a dashing horse!" And how could the former army captain General Wrangel, who has lived in Europe for the last twenty years, know this?

Few people know, but many saboteurs of the Third Reich were exposed not even by the army counterintelligence officers SMERSH, but by the most ordinary patrols. It happened in a ridiculously simple way: the Germans made stainless steel paper clips for documents, in the USSR they were made of ordinary steel and therefore rusted. One glance at the document was enough, and it immediately became clear who was in front of you.