Bulletin March 17, 1991. Was it possible to save the USSR
104. Legal significance of the referendum in the USSR 1991
By decision of the Fourth Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR and on the basis of the resolution of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR dated January 16, 1991, the question was put to a popular vote (referendum): “Do you consider it necessary to preserve the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics, in which there will be the rights and freedoms of a person of any nationality be fully guaranteed?”
By decision of the Fourth Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR and on the basis of the resolution of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR dated January 16, 1991, the question was put to a popular vote (referendum): “Do you consider it necessary to preserve the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics, in which there will be the rights and freedoms of a person of any nationality be fully guaranteed?”
In the USSR as a whole, 186,617,355 people or 80% were included in the lists of citizens entitled to participate in the USSR referendum. Of these, 113,517,817 people, or 76.4%, answered “Yes”; “No” was answered by 32,303,977 people, or 21.7%.
1.9% of ballots were declared invalid. The results of the referendum for the republics separately are characterized by the following data:
The authorities of the Georgian SSR (Georgia), the Latvian SSR (Latvia), the Lithuanian SSR (Lithuania), the Moldavian SSR (Moldova), the Armenian SSR (Armenia) and the Estonia SSR (Estonia) prevented the holding of a referendum on the territory of their republics. Therefore, central republican referendum commissions were not created.
HISTORICAL FACT: the majority of citizens - 75% (!) - voted to preserve their not yet completely sold country.
We are still trying to understand why the majority gave in to the minority. But despite the enormity of the catastrophe that happened to us, everything was as simple as shelling pears. The people had only the will, and the traitors had power.
It should be noted that subsequently, the Russian Duma, relying on Art. 29 of the USSR Law of December 27, 1990 No. 1869-I “On the national vote (referendum of the USSR)”, that “a decision made by a referendum of the USSR is final, has binding force throughout the entire territory of the USSR and can only be canceled or changed by a new referendum of the USSR”, adopted on March 15, 1996 Resolution No. 157-II "On legal force for Russian Federation- Russia, the results of the USSR referendum on March 17, 1991 on the issue of preserving the USSR", which states that “The officials of the RSFSR, who prepared, signed and ratified the decision to terminate the existence of the USSR, grossly violated the will of the people of Russia to preserve the USSR.” And it is unlikely that from the point of view of international legal norms it is possible to recognize the new states that have arisen in the space of the USSR as legal. Because they arose against the will of the majority of citizens of the USSR.
105 The withdrawal of the Union republics from the USSR: causes, consequences.
The collapse of the USSR, formalized by the Belovezhskaya Agreement between the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus by B. N. Yeltsin, L. M. Kravchuk and S. S. Shushkevich on December 8, 1991, is one of the most significant events in the world history of the 20th century. This is perhaps the only assessment that is accepted by most historians and politicians. All other issues related to the analysis of the causes and significance of the collapse of the USSR remain the subject of heated debate. Reasons for the collapse of the USSR. In March 1990, at an all-Union referendum, the majority of citizens spoke in favor of preserving the USSR and the need to reform it. By the summer of 1991, a new Union Treaty was prepared, which gave a chance to renew the federal state. But it was not possible to maintain unity. The USSR collapsed. Why? Here are the most common explanations offered by researchers: - The USSR was created in 1922. as a federal state. However, over time, it increasingly turned into an essentially unitary state, governed from the center and leveling out the differences between the republics and subjects of federal relations. The problems of inter-republican and inter-ethnic relations were ignored for many years, difficulties were pushed deeper and were not resolved. During the years of perestroika, when interethnic conflicts became explosive and extremely dangerous, decision-making was postponed until 1990-1991. The accumulation of contradictions made disintegration inevitable; - The USSR was created on the basis of recognition of the right of nations to self-determination; the federation was built not on a territorial, but on a national-territorial principle. In the Constitutions of 1924, 1936 and 1977. contained norms on the sovereignty of the republics that were part of the USSR. In the context of a growing crisis, these norms became a catalyst for centrifugal processes; - the unified national economic complex that developed in the USSR ensured the economic integration of the republics. However, as economic difficulties grew, economic ties began to break down, the republics showed tendencies towards self-isolation, and the center was not ready for such a development of events; - the Soviet political system was based on strict centralization of power, the real bearer of which was not so much the state as the Communist Party. The crisis of the CPSU, its loss of its leading role, its collapse inevitably led to the collapse of the country; - the unity and integrity of the Union was largely ensured by its ideological unity. The crisis of the communist value system created a spiritual vacuum that was filled with nationalist ideas; - political, economic, ideological crisis that the USSR experienced in last years its existence, led to the weakening of the center and the strengthening of the republics and their political elites. For economic, political, and personal reasons, the national elites were interested not so much in preserving the USSR as in its collapse. The “Parade of Sovereignties” of 1990 clearly showed the mood and intentions of the national party-state elites. The meaning of the collapse of the USSR. The significance of such large-scale events is determined by time. Only 10 years have passed since the collapse of the USSR, historians and politicians, citizens of the states that arose in the place of the USSR, are at the mercy of emotions and are not yet ready for balanced, well-founded conclusions. Let us therefore note the obvious: the collapse of the USSR led to the emergence of independent sovereign states; the geopolitical situation in Europe and throughout the world has changed radically; the severance of economic ties became one of the main reasons for the deep economic crisis in Russia and other countries - the heirs of the USSR; Serious problems arose related to the fate of Russians who remained outside Russia, and national minorities in general. The formation of a new Russian statehood. The process of formation of a new Russian statehood began with the adoption by the Supreme Council of the RSFSR of the Declaration of the Sovereignty of Russia (1990) and the election of the first Russian president (June 12, 1991). With the collapse of the USSR (December 1991), the status of the Russian Federation as an independent sovereign state became a legal and factual reality. The period of formation of Russian statehood ended on December 12, 1993, when the Constitution of the Russian Federation was adopted in a national referendum and the Soviet political system was finally dismantled. The birth of the modern Russian state was a dramatic, extremely painful and complex process.
March 17, 1991, exactly 26 years ago citizens Soviet Union At a special all-Union referendum they voted to preserve the USSR. More precisely, they believed that they were voting for this, but the reality turned out to be much more complicated. It included not only betrayal when the Union was dissolved without regard to the plebiscite, but also a much more multi-layered lie.
The question of what kind of referendum it was, who and why it was held, and why it ultimately contributed not to the preservation of the USSR, but the exact opposite, remains relevant.
26 years ago, Soviet citizens went to the polls to speak out about the fate of their country. A vote took place, which to this day is called a referendum on the preservation of the USSR. The overwhelming majority of voters - 77%, or 113 million people in absolute terms - were in favor. But for what exactly? Did the citizens of the USSR understand that they were actually voting not for the preservation, but for the collapse of the country?
Counter-revolution from above
Gradually, the party leadership of the USSR, as a result of its irresponsibility to the people, rotted and eventually decided to “build communism” not for all citizens, but for themselves personally. The Union prevented this, which means it had to be destroyed.
With Gorbachev coming to power, a complete bacchanalia began, the details of which are remembered by many, so we will not describe everything.
Since 1985, a crazy campaign began to brainwash the population, discredit the Soviet Union, communism and everything connected with it. Someone will say that the people were not happy with life. Where there! Life for the people, as it now turns out, was not much worse than in Europe and much better than now. And the economic growth rate was good. It was just that a counter-revolution was carried out from above, nuclear propaganda attacks were inflicted on the population with fakes, frame-ups, American films and jeans, tons of lies and deliberate acts of discredit (such as hiding consumer goods in warehouses, etc.). The entire powerful propaganda machine worked for this. External enemies, naturally, helped and applauded the “fifth column” in every possible way. The people were disoriented and confused, the country found itself defenseless against enemies at the very top.
Referendum as shock therapy
The program of political and socio-economic reforms proclaimed by Mikhail Gorbachev’s team in 1985 almost immediately resulted in an acute state crisis. Since 1986, bloody conflicts on interethnic grounds have constantly flared up in the USSR. First Almaty, then the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, pogroms in Sumgait, Kirovabad, massacre in Kazakh New Uzgen, massacre in Fergana, pogroms in Andijan, Osh, Baku. At the same time, nationalist movements in the Baltics that appeared seemingly out of nowhere were rapidly gaining strength.
From November 1988 to July 1989, the Estonian, Lithuanian, and Latvian SSRs successively declared their sovereignty, soon followed by the Azerbaijani and Georgian SSRs.
Under these conditions, the bulk of Soviet citizens assessed the processes taking place in the country - and this must be recognized! - completely inadequate. Almost no one thought that the conflicts flaring up in the periphery could mean the imminent collapse of the country. The union seemed unshakable. There were no precedents for secession from the Soviet state. There was no legal procedure for the secession of the republics. People were waiting for order to be restored and the situation to normalize.
Instead, on December 24, 1990, the IV Congress of People's Deputies suddenly put the following questions to a vote:
“Do you consider it necessary to preserve the USSR as a single state?”,
“Do you consider it necessary to preserve the socialist system in the USSR?”,
“Do you consider it necessary to preserve Soviet power in the renewed Union?”
Following this, the congress, at the request of Mikhail Gorbachev, decided to submit the issue of preserving the USSR to an all-Union referendum.
In the resolution on its holding, the only question to the Soviet people was formulated as follows:
“Do you consider it necessary to preserve the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics, in which the rights and freedoms of people of any nationality will be fully guaranteed?”
And the answer options: “yes” or “no”.
Some assessments of this document have been preserved, interestingly, from the anti-Soviet-minded democratic public. Thus, People's Deputy of the USSR Galina Starovoitova spoke about “a pile of contradictory and even mutually exclusive concepts.”
And human rights activist, member of the Moscow Helsinki Group Malva Landa stated:
“The question is crafty, designed for people to not be able to figure it out. This is not one, but at least six questions.”
True, human rights activists and democrats at that time believed that this confusion was specially created by the communists to hide in the fog the vague formulations of the upcoming “unpopular and anti-people actions” to stifle free thought and return back to Brezhnev times.
They were not mistaken about one thing - the vague formulations really served to hide the upcoming “unpopular and anti-people actions.” But with the exact opposite sign.
What (or against what) were the citizens of the country asked to vote for? For the preservation of the USSR? Or for a new state structure - a renewed federation? What is it and how do we feel about the phrase “federation... of sovereign republics”? That is, the Soviet people simultaneously voted for the preservation of the USSR and for the “parade of sovereignties”?
The referendum was held in nine Soviet republics. Moldova, Armenia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia sabotaged the referendum on their territory, although the vote did not bypass them either - for example, South Ossetia, Transnistria, Gagauzia, and the north-eastern regions of Estonia joined the expression of will “privately”. Not everything was smooth where the plebiscite was carried out in full. So, in the Kazakh SSR the wording of the question was changed to:
“Do you consider it necessary to preserve the USSR as a Union of equal sovereign states?”
In Ukraine, an additional question was included in the ballot:
“Do you agree that Ukraine should be part of the Union of Soviet Sovereign States on the basis of the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine?”
In both cases (and clearly not by chance), the new state was called the Union of Sovereign States (USS).
According to the results of this referendum, 113,512,812 (77.85%) people voted for preserving the USSR. There are 32,303,977 (22.15%) citizens against the union. 2,757,817 (1.86%) ballots were invalid. Turnout was 185,647,355 (80.03%).
Reassembly is the result of perestroika
The issue of reorganizing the USSR was raised back in the late 1980s. Initially, the talk was about amending the Constitution with the aim of restructuring life “on democratic principles.” The unrest that broke out in the country, followed by the “parade of sovereignties” with the announcement of the priority of republican legislation over union legislation, caused a largely paradoxical reaction. Instead of suspending reforms until order was restored and the rule of law was established throughout the country, it was decided to speed up the reforms.
In December 1990, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR generally approved the draft of a new Union Treaty proposed by Mikhail Gorbachev to replace the document that had been in force since 1922, uniting the country into a single whole. That is, in the conditions of increasing disintegration of the state, the first president of the USSR decided to dismantle the country and reassemble it again on new principles.
What was the basis of this Union? The draft Union Treaty was finalized in the spring and summer of 1991 during numerous meetings and conferences with republican leaders at Gorbachev’s country residence in Novo-Ogarevo. The country's president actively discussed the reassembly of the state with the growing national elites. The final version of the Treaty on the Union of Sovereign States (GCC is a surprising coincidence with the Kazakh and Ukrainian bulletins, isn't it?) was published in the Pravda newspaper on August 15, 1991. It said, in particular:
“The states forming the Union have full political power, independently determine their national-state structure, system of government and management bodies.”
The issues of forming a law enforcement system and their own army were transferred to the jurisdiction of states, and not even “sovereign republics” (the masks were dropped!), they could independently act in the foreign policy arena on a whole range of issues.
The New Union of Sovereign States was thus just a relatively civilized form of divorce.
What about the referendum? It fit perfectly into the logic of the ongoing processes. Let us recall that in December 1990 the draft of the new Union Treaty was approved for work, on March 17 a referendum was held “on the preservation of the USSR” with a very vague formulation of the question, and already on March 21, 1991, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR issued a resolution in which it stated no less casuistically:
“77% of voters voted in favor of preserving the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Thus, the position on the issue of preserving the USSR on the basis of democratic reforms received support.”
Hence,
« government agencies The USSR and the republics (should) be guided by the decision of the people... in support of the renewed (!) Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.”
“we will work more energetically to complete the work on the new Union Treaty in order to sign it in as soon as possible».
Thus, the new Union Treaty and the strange formation of the USG through simple manipulations were legitimized through a referendum in 1991.
Destruction disguised as renewal
So, if we touch on the background of the referendum, it turns out (as conceived by Gorbachev and others!): the Soviet people do not understand what is happening, they see how their country is being destroyed, but do not know what to do, and turn (allegedly!) to the authorities :
“What are you doing, you bastards! Save the country!
And what do the traitor Gorbachev and the deputies answer to the people:
“Here you go, not the country! A renewed federation, equal, sovereign... Get it.”
The authorities decided to finish off the Motherland under the guise of the will of the people.
But deputies of the Congress and the Supreme Council are obliged to defend the country by the very fact of their existence, without asking anyone about it. Why a referendum? The 1977 Constitution requires this from the authorities and deputies:
- Article 31. The defense of the socialist Fatherland is one of the most important functions of the state and is the work of the entire people.
However, this is the result of the fact that there was no mechanism for accountability to the people for the results of government for the highest elected authorities in the USSR. If deputies at the end of their term of office could be sent to prison for poor performance results, if the people were dissatisfied with them, then such insanity would not exist.
What thoughts arise when reading such a question? What kind of vile formulation is this “renewed federation of equal sovereign republics.”
- Firstly, such a question gave legitimacy to the question of the existence of the USSR in general. Previously people and could not think, “How is it possible that there will be no Union?” That's how! Such a question destroyed the USSR in people's minds.
Imagine that during the war it was not Stalin who led our country, but some irresponsible bastard, like Gorbachev or Yeltsin. The Baltic states, Ukraine, Belarus has been taken, the Germans are already near Moscow, the country is in extreme tension, inspiration is needed, but it doesn’t sound like something like Order 227 “Not a step back!”, but the following:
“Do you consider it necessary to preserve the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics, in which the rights and freedoms of people of any nationality will be fully guaranteed?”
You can even add: “including German”. Who puts such issues to a vote at a time of mortal threat to the country? Only the enemy.
- Secondly, as you have already noticed, the issue is not even about preserving the USSR. Here he is, by the way, to lull vigilance. We are talking about the question of the destruction (replaced with the word “renew”) of the Soviet Union and the formation of something new, some kind of federation. What is this “new”? Has this been explained to people? No, they were deceived.
- Third. People, having read the question, have already begun to think whether there should be this “new Union” or not (and why not, because the Union is better than not the Union), and here they also explain to us why this “new Union” will be better, than our Native Union, our Motherland, which is being destroyed: it will be “renewed” (which means the Native Union is backward, not modern), human rights and freedoms will be fully guaranteed in it (which means that in our Native Union the rights and freedoms of citizens were not guaranteed or this was not done to the fullest extent, everyone was deceived), and even of any nationality (this means that there was no friendship of peoples in our homeland, everyone lied).
After the referendum in the spring-summer of 1991, Gorbachev’s working group within the framework of the so-called. Novo-Ogaryovo process, a project was developed to conclude a new union - Union of Soviet Sovereign Republics How soft, decentralized federation.
The draft of a new agreement on the creation of the Union was initialed twice - on April 23 and June 17, 1991. The final version of the “Treaty on the Union of Sovereign States” was published in the Pravda newspaper on August 15. It stated:
“The states forming the Union have full political power, independently determine their national-state structure, system of government and administration, they can delegate part of their powers to other states party to the Treaty...”
“This agreement... comes into force from the moment of signing... by authorized delegations. For the states that signed it, from the same date the Treaty on the Formation of the USSR of 1922 is considered to have lost force.”
As M. S. Gorbachev said, on August 20, Belarus, Kazakhstan, the RSFSR, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan were supposed to sign a new union treaty, and in the fall Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine and Turkmenistan could join them.
But State Committee under a state of emergency, on August 18-21 he made an unsuccessful attempt to forcibly remove M. S. Gorbachev from the post of President of the USSR, disrupting the signing of the Union Treaty and thereby the liquidation of the Soviet Union:
“...Taking advantage of the freedoms granted, trampling on the newly emerging sprouts of democracy, extremist forces arose that set a course for the liquidation of the Soviet Union, the collapse of the state and the seizure of power at any cost. The results of the national referendum on the unity of the Fatherland have been trampled.”
On September 5, 1991, the V Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR did not let up, having adopted the “Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms”, declared a transition period for the formation new system state relations, preparation and signing of the Treaty on the Union of Sovereign States.
In the fall of 1991, with the sanction of the central and republican authorities, the working group of the Novo-Ogaryovo process developed new project Agreements - on the creation Union of Sovereign States(SSG) like (already!) confederation independent states (“confederal state”).
Preliminary consent to conclude an agreement on December 9, 1991 on the creation of the GCC with its capital in Minsk was given on November 14, 1991 by only seven republics (Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan). Two republics in which referendums on independence were held the day before (Armenia and Ukraine) refused to join the confederal union.
However, on December 8, 1991, the heads of three states (the Republic of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine) at a meeting in Belovezhskaya Pushcha,
“noting that negotiations on the preparation of a new Union Treaty have reached a dead end, the objective process of the republics secession from the USSR and the formation of independent states has become a real fact,”
concluded the Belovezhskaya Agreement on the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States - an intergovernmental and interparliamentary organization that does not have the status of a state.
Thus, the treacherous Belovezhsky conspiracy of Shushkevich, Kravchuk and Yeltsin only forestalled Gorbachev’s team and consolidated the results of the systematic destruction of the Soviet Union. Moreover, they did as the people “asked” them to do in the referendum. Well, almost like that.
Did you want a “renewed federation of equal sovereign republics”? Receive it and sign it!
So, there is no doubt that this referendum was another incredibly vile subversive action of the enemies of the people at the instigation of the West against the USSR.
But there is also no doubt that the majority of the people in the referendum were in favor of preserving the old Native USSR, their Motherland, and went to vote precisely for this.
On March 17, 1991, a referendum was held in which the majority of citizens voted to preserve the USSR.
In six republics (Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Georgia, Moldova, Armenia) perestroika has already done everything that is needed, so higher authorities the authorities refused to hold a referendum. That is, they thereby committed high treason and did not allow the people to express their will.
In other republics the results were as follows.
Our Central Asian brothers have become an example of having a strong sense of statehood. They, who still preserved communal traditions, had a much higher understanding of the need to live in a united and therefore strong country than the Russians. Unfortunately, but true.
Where were there more traitors?
In terms of the level of betrayal, the capitals and the birthplace of Boris Yeltsin - the Sverdlovsk region - were ahead of everyone.
Below is a table where red the shade indicates republics and regions with a share of those voting FOR higher than the average for the Union, blue- below.
As you can see, the hatred of the rest of Russia for Muscovites is quite natural. That's where the main responsibility lies - the capital.
Please note that even in Checheno-Ingushetia, the percentage of those who voted for preserving the Union turned out to be higher than the national average and almost the same as in the USSR. So much for the Chechen separatists. By that time, the democrats had not yet led the scumbag scumbags by the hand and put them at the head of Chechnya.
We know from history that capturing the minds of the capital is key.
Let us give an unsuccessful comparison in terms of motives and goals, but still an illustrative one. In the elections to the Constituent Assembly of 1917, the Bolsheviks throughout Russia gained 22.4% (the Social Revolutionaries were the first - 39.5%), but they won by a large margin in Moscow (47.9%), Moscow region (55.8%) , Petrograd (48.7%), Minsk (63.1%).
In 1991, Moscow, St. Petersburg, Sverdlovsk region. were among the progressives who voted for the introduction of the post of President of the RSFSR, and later among the progressives who voted for Yeltsin in the elections.
It is clear that the propaganda blow was primarily aimed at the capitals. There was more money allocated, more bribes, more falsifications. But still, there are actually more sincere idiots who did not want to “feed unnecessary republics.”
So what happens? In general, the Soviet people, some to a lesser extent, some to a greater extent, withstood the nuclear attack on their consciousness and intuitively understood that they were being deceived, and therefore supported the preservation of the Soviet Union.
But it was not enough to vote, what does it even mean to vote for the preservation of the Union, when “the Germans are already near Moscow,” or rather in the Kremlin, at the very top. It is pointless. It was necessary to fight for the Union, including with arms in hand. After all, this was required of all citizens by the Constitution of the USSR.
- Constitution. Article 62. A citizen of the USSR is obliged to protect the interests of the Soviet state and help strengthen its power and authority.
- Defense of the socialist Fatherland is the sacred duty of every citizen of the USSR.
- Treason to the Motherland - heinous crime in front of the people.
It is clear that there were no leaders, this did not happen, this did not happen, and Yanaev’s hands were shaking... Why did everyone unanimously forget about their main duty as a Citizen?
Afterword
In 1996 The State Duma The Russian Federation adopted a resolution “On the legal force for the Russian Federation - Russia of the results of the USSR referendum on March 17, 1991 on the issue of preserving the USSR.” And since there was no other referendum on this issue, it declared illegal the 1991 resolution of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR “On the denunciation of the Treaty on the Formation of the USSR” and legally recognized the USSR as an existing political entity.
That is, even deputies of the Russian State Duma, five years after the referendum, still believed that it was “about preserving the USSR.” Which, as we have seen at least from the wording of the question, is not true. The referendum was about “reformatting” the country.
This, however, does not at all negate the paradoxical fact that people - citizens of the country, in spite of everything, without delving into the formulations, voted precisely for the preservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. But all 113 million who voted were subsequently cynically deceived.
The empire was destroyed against the will of its people. It is customary to blame Gorbachev, Yeltsin and his associates for this. However, the leaders of other republics were no better. It’s just that some people had a bigger pie, some people had a smaller one. Driving something to the West for hard currency is the dream of any late Soviet and or communist leader.
Ideally, the countries of the Eurasian Union should finally form a single space with a completely new understanding of both national sovereignty and unity. Now in the world there is such a thing as a consolidated West. Russia and its partners have a chance to create a consolidated East - a natural storehouse, a technology factory and the main military power of the BRICS, SCO, and EAEU countries. As Russian President Vladimir Putin correctly noted at one time: “Whoever does not regret the collapse of the USSR does not have a heart. And the one who wants to restore it to its previous form has no head.” And it’s hard to disagree with this statement. Today we have a unique opportunity, based on new integration associations, not to repeat the mistakes of the past. Which will require, first of all, a change in the concept of building relations between countries. Interaction according to the principle: everyone pulls the blanket over themselves and wants to grab a bigger piece - this is a short-sighted policy, the result of which is the weakening of the Union, which our Western “partners” take advantage of. Modern integration processes require a qualitatively new management corps, and at all levels of government: from supranational bodies to local officials. Management literacy (based on a sound management theory), the presence of a broad outlook and personal moral and ethical qualities are the key to the future development of the Union. Unfortunately, today we can observe precisely the lack of personnel in the EAEU, which leads to many conflicts, misunderstandings between the parties and low rates of integration.
The failure of the Eurasian project does not bode well for either Russia or the other participating countries.
Nazi nationalists actively oppose Eurasian integration. And everywhere: in Belarus, and in the Russian Federation, and in Kazakhstan. They are not the smartest, but the worst enemies of their peoples. However, the Nazis are weak, so they seek support either from the West or from the international terrorist international.
The communists, in turn, dream of the revival of the Union on socialist principles. Whether this is good or bad is a separate question. However, this is hardly possible. In Russia and the former Soviet republics, the thirst for profit for a long time, if not forever, defeated social justice in people's hearts.
Now the collapse of the USSR is called the largest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. The naive dreams of those who believed that each republic would individually achieve prosperity did not come true. The common market collapsed, technological and industrial chains disintegrated, new countries closed customs from each other, introduced their own money and even visas. Wars broke out in some regions. All this is a direct consequence of the collapse of the USSR.
What happened in 1991, meaning the collapse of the USSR, was not the result of internal processes taking place in the country at that time. The choice that was made 26 years ago was imposed by the West. Those people who were in power then betrayed the country and its multinational people.
The people critically perceive the reality in which they exist. In this situation, he turns to either the past or the future. But the future is uncertain, and what happened in the past is attractive to many. Therefore, in contrast to liberal ideas, there appears a tendency towards conservatism, towards traditional values that existed in both pre-revolutionary and Soviet society.
The way the authorities handled the results of the All-Union referendum on the preservation of the USSR can be called one hundred percent betrayal. People in power thought only about their own interests, about obtaining selfish benefits for themselves, they felt a desire to divide and appropriate state property. They were not at all interested in the opinion of the people and their fate.
Exactly 25 years ago, citizens of the Soviet Union voted in a special all-Union referendum to preserve the USSR. More precisely, they believed that they were voting for this, but the reality turned out to be much more complicated. It included not only betrayal when the Union was dissolved without regard to the plebiscite, but also a much more multi-layered lie.
A quarter of a century ago, Soviet citizens went to the polls to speak out about the fate of their country. A vote took place, which to this day is called a referendum on the preservation of the USSR. The overwhelming majority of voters - 76%, or 112 million people in absolute terms - were in favor. But for what exactly? Did the citizens of the USSR understand that they were actually voting not for the preservation, but for the collapse of the country?
Referendum as shock therapy
The program of political and socio-economic transformations proclaimed by Mikhail Gorbachev’s team almost immediately resulted in an acute state crisis. Since 1986, bloody conflicts on interethnic grounds have constantly flared up in the USSR. First Almaty, then the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, pogroms in Sumgait, Kirovabad, massacre in Kazakh New Uzgen, massacre in Fergana, pogroms in Andijan, Osh, Baku. At the same time, nationalist movements in the Baltics that appeared seemingly out of nowhere were rapidly gaining strength. From November 1988 to July 1989, the Estonian, Lithuanian, and Latvian SSRs successively declared their sovereignty, soon followed by the Azerbaijani and Georgian SSRs.
Under these conditions, the bulk of Soviet citizens assessed the processes taking place in the country - and this must be recognized! – completely inadequate. Almost no one thought that the conflicts flaring up in the periphery could mean the imminent collapse of the country. The union seemed unshakable. There were no precedents for secession from the Soviet state. There was no legal procedure for the secession of the republics. People were waiting for order to be restored and the situation to normalize.
Instead, on December 24, 1990, the IV Congress of People's Deputies suddenly put to a vote the following questions: “Do you consider it necessary to preserve the USSR as a single state?”, “Do you consider it necessary to preserve the socialist system in the USSR?”, “Do you consider it necessary to preserve the renewed Union of Soviet Power? Following this, the congress, at the request of Mikhail Gorbachev, decided to submit the issue of preserving the USSR to an all-Union referendum.
In the resolution on its holding, the only question to the Soviet people was formulated as follows: “Do you consider it necessary to preserve the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics, in which the rights and freedoms of people of any nationality will be fully guaranteed.” And the answer options: “yes” or “no”.
From the USSR to Russia: how our country has changed in thirty years
Some assessments of this document have been preserved, interestingly, from the anti-Soviet-minded democratic public. Thus, People's Deputy of the USSR Galina Starovoitova spoke about “a pile of contradictory and even mutually exclusive concepts.” And human rights activist, member of the Moscow Helsinki Group Malva Landa argued: “The question is crafty, designed for people not to be able to figure it out. This is not one, but at least six questions.” True, human rights activists and democrats at that time believed that this confusion was specially created by the communists to hide in the fog the unclear formulations of the upcoming “unpopular and anti-people actions” to stifle free thought and return back to Brezhnev times.
They were not mistaken about one thing - the vague formulations really served to hide the upcoming “unpopular and anti-people actions.” But with the exact opposite sign.
What (or against what) were the citizens of the country asked to vote for? For the preservation of the USSR? Or for a new state structure - a renewed federation? What is it and how do we feel about the phrase “federation... of sovereign republics”? That is, the Soviet people simultaneously voted for the preservation of the USSR and for the “parade of sovereignties”?
The referendum was held in nine Soviet republics. Moldova, Armenia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia sabotaged the referendum on their territory, although the vote did not bypass them either - for example, South Ossetia, Transnistria, Gagauzia, and the north-eastern regions of Estonia joined the expression of will “privately”. Not everything was smooth where the plebiscite was carried out in full. Thus, in the Kazakh SSR the wording of the question was changed to: “Do you consider it necessary to preserve the USSR as a Union of equal sovereign states?” In Ukraine, an additional question was included in the ballot: “Do you agree that Ukraine should be part of the Union of Soviet Sovereign States on the basis of the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine?” In both cases (and clearly not by chance), the new state was called the Union of Sovereign States (USS).
Reassembly is the result of perestroika
The issue of reorganizing the USSR was raised back in the late 1980s. Initially, the talk was about amending the Constitution with the aim of restructuring life “on democratic principles.” The unrest that broke out in the country, followed by the “parade of sovereignties” with the announcement of the priority of republican legislation over union legislation, caused a largely paradoxical reaction. Instead of suspending reforms until order was restored and the rule of law was established throughout the country, it was decided to speed up the reforms.
In December 1990, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR generally approved the draft of a new Union Treaty proposed by Mikhail Gorbachev to replace the document that had been in force since 1922, uniting the country into a single whole. That is, in the conditions of increasing disintegration of the state, the first president of the USSR decided to dismantle the country and reassemble it again on new principles.
What was the basis of this Union? The draft Union Treaty was finalized in the spring and summer of 1991 during numerous meetings and conferences with republican leaders at Gorbachev’s country residence in Novo-Ogarevo. The country's president actively discussed the reassembly of the state with the growing national elites. The final version of the Treaty on the Union of Sovereign States (GCC is a surprising coincidence with the Kazakh and Ukrainian bulletins, isn’t it?) was published in the Pravda newspaper on August 15, 1991. It said, in particular: “The states that form the Union have full political power and independently determine their national-state structure, system of government and administration.” The issues of forming a law enforcement system and their own army were transferred to the jurisdiction of states, and not even “sovereign republics” (the masks were dropped), and they could independently act in the foreign policy arena on a number of issues.
The New Union of Sovereign States was thus just a relatively civilized form of divorce.
What about the referendum? It fit perfectly into the logic of the ongoing processes. Let us recall that in December 1990 the draft of the new Union Treaty was approved for work, on March 17 a referendum was held “on the preservation of the USSR” with a very vague formulation of the question, and already on March 21, 1991, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR issued a resolution in which it stated no less casuistically: “76% of voters voted in favor of preserving the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Thus, the position on the issue of preserving the USSR on the basis of democratic reforms received support.” Consequently, “the state bodies of the USSR and republics (should) be guided by the decision of the people... in support of the renewed (!) Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.” On this basis, the President of the USSR is recommended to “work more energetically towards completing the work on the new Union Treaty in order to sign it as soon as possible.”
Thus, the new Union Treaty and the strange formation of the USG through simple manipulations were legitimized through a referendum in 1991.
Paternalism that comes at a cost
The signing of the new Union Treaty was thwarted by the August 1991 coup. It is characteristic that in his address to the people, speaking about certain forces (but without directly naming them) that were heading for the collapse of the country, the Emergency Committee contrasted them with the results of the March referendum “on the preservation of the USSR.” That is, even high-ranking government officials did not penetrate into the essence of the multi-step manipulation that took place before their eyes.
After the failure of the putsch, Gorbachev prepared a new draft of the Union Treaty - even more radical, already on a confederation of states - former Soviet republics. But its signing was thwarted by the local elites, who were tired of waiting and, behind Gorbachev’s back, dissolved the USSR in Belovezhskaya Pushcha. However, it is enough to look at the text of the agreement that the President of the USSR worked on to understand that he was preparing the same CIS for us.
In December 1991, another referendum was held in Ukraine - this time on independence. 90% of those who took part in the vote were in favor of “independence”. Today, a shocking video of that time is available on the Internet - journalists interview Kiev residents at the exit from polling stations. People who have just voted for the collapse of the country are completely confident that they will continue to live in a single Union, with common industrial and economic ties and a united army. “Independence” was perceived as a kind of eccentricity of power. Absolutely paternalistic citizens of the disintegrating USSR believed that the leadership knew what they were doing. Well, for some reason he wanted to hold several referendums (the country is democratizing, maybe this is really necessary?), We don’t mind, we’ll vote. In general (and there was iron confidence in this regard) nothing fundamentally will change...
It took many years and a lot of blood to heal from this ultra-paternalism and extremely detached view of politics.
The surreality of what was happening was confusing not only ordinary people. After the officially formalized dissolution of the Soviet Union and Mikhail Gorbachev's resignation as President of the USSR, the leadership of a number of republics continued to await instructions from Moscow. And I was extremely perplexed that such instructions were not received, cutting off phones in attempts to contact the no longer existing union center.
Much later, in 1996, the State Duma of the Russian Federation adopted a resolution “On the legal force for the Russian Federation - Russia of the results of the USSR referendum on March 17, 1991 on the issue of preserving the USSR.” And since there was no other referendum on this issue, it declared illegal the 1991 resolution of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR “On the denunciation of the Treaty on the Formation of the USSR” and legally recognized the USSR as an existing political entity.
That is, even deputies of the Russian State Duma, five years after the referendum, still believed that it was “about preserving the USSR.” Which, as we have seen at least from the wording of the question, is not true. The referendum was about “reformatting” the country.
This, however, does not at all negate the paradoxical fact that people - citizens of the country, in spite of everything, without delving into the wording, voted precisely for the preservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. But all 112 million who voted were subsequently cynically deceived.
25 years ago, on March 17, 1991, a referendum was held on the preservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). For the first time, Soviet citizens had the opportunity to express their opinions about the future of the country.
The events of those days are still assessed differently by everyone. Some believe that the will of the majority, who voted for the preservation of the Union, was subsequently betrayed; according to others, nothing could save the state in the form in which it existed.
The collapse of the USSR is called the largest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. Even those who do not regret the collapse of the Soviet regime often mention the personal tragedy associated with the loss of the country in which they were born.
TASS opens a series of materials about the events of 1991 that led to the collapse of the USSR, with memories of the March referendum, its causes and consequences. What did Soviet citizens vote for and was their opinion really ignored?
Confusing wording
The formulation of the main question put to the referendum from the very beginning caused a lot of controversy and seemed confusing - whether we were talking about preserving the USSR, or about a new federation. Many opponents of the Union did not raise their hand to reject the authorities’ promises to respect human rights and freedoms. Everyone understood the question in their own way. But overall, the idea of ordinary citizens being asked for the first time which country they would like to live in was intoxicating.
The decision taken at the referendum, according to the resolution of the Supreme Council of the USSR of January 16, 1991, was supposed to be “final.” But the resolution also included a second one. It contained several reservations, on the basis of which we can conclude that the results of the referendum were rather advisory in nature. This further confused the situation, including for future interpretations of the plebiscite results.
part of the population of these republics was still able to vote at polling stations organized by individual Councils of People's Deputies and public organizations. A referendum took place and in some autonomous republics, who were part of the "refuseniks". In particular, the overwhelming majority of residents of Transnistria and Gagauzia (part of Moldova), as well as Abkhazia and South Ossetia (part of the Georgian SSR; on the day of the referendum, Georgian troops attacked the capital of South Ossetia, Tskhinvali) voted for the preservation of the USSR.
1">
1">
Gennady Burbulis, one of Boris Yeltsin’s closest associates, who was a people’s deputy of the USSR at that time, in a conversation with TASS emphasized that if we compare the number of people who had the right to vote in the elections of people’s deputies of the USSR in 1989 (192.6 million people) and All-Union referendum in 1991 (185.6 million), it turns out that about 7 million were already recognized as not citizens of the USSR.
He also recalled that Kazakhstan (almost 10 million voters) submitted its question to a referendum: “Do you consider it necessary to preserve the USSR as a Union of equal sovereign states?” And Ukraine (almost 38 million voters) with its additional question: “Do you agree that Ukraine should be part of the Union of Soviet Sovereign States on the basis of the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine?” – specified the conditions under which it is ready to join the “renewed Union”. A similar process is taking place in Russia - at the Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR, a decision was made to supplement the referendum with the question of introducing the institution of the presidency.
Another MP who was part of Yeltsin’s team, Sergei Stankevich, told TASS that the future first president of the Russian Federation initially reacted negatively to the idea of holding a referendum. Yeltsin believed that this would interfere Russian project transformations, and opposed any attempts to maintain the directive union center.
“There were very heated debates within Yeltsin’s team, and he was convinced that it was necessary to participate in negotiations, go to a referendum, but at the same time bring to it our own issue of introducing the presidential post in Russia,” Stankevich recalled.
As a result, the population of at least two republics - Russia and Ukraine - voted simultaneously for both the preservation of the USSR and decentralization.
According to Stankevich, on March 17, by answering “yes” to the main question of the referendum, the citizens of the USSR voted for a political promise, a renewed Union in which all economic and political human rights would be protected. However, it soon became obvious that these promises were not destined to be realized. It is no coincidence that the signing of the Belovezh Accords by the leaders of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine in December 1991 to end the existence of the USSR did not lead to mass protests. Although rallies and demonstrations of many thousands were a very common occurrence at that time. In the minds of the majority, the USSR ceased to exist even before the agreements were signed. But then no one yet realized what life meant in different states and what the consequences of the collapse of the USSR were.
© YouTube.com/TASS
Was it possible to save the USSR
The Gorbachev Foundation dates the collapse of the USSR from the events of 1986, when in mid-December mass riots on ethnic grounds occurred in Alma-Ata (the capital of the Kazakh SSR). For the first time since the beginning of perestroika, troops were used against demonstrators. Several people died and dozens were injured.
This was followed by events in Nagorno-Karabakh, the Baltic states, Georgia and then almost everywhere. The crisis developed, the economic situation worsened, and at the same time a struggle unfolded between supporters and opponents of reforming the USSR. Gorbachev found himself between the ossified party elite and the democratic opposition, which was by no means homogeneous.
1">
1">
(($index + 1))/((countSlides))
((currentSlide + 1))/((countSlides))
According to Stankevich, the summer of 1990 was a “brilliant chance” to come to an agreement and preserve a unified state. At that time, even among the most radical proposals, there was no talk of dissolving the USSR; the opposition was committed to concluding a Union Treaty. The first disappointment and feeling of hopelessness appeared in September, when Gorbachev rejected the Shatalin-Yavlinsky program, which was a compromise between his team and the opposition and offered a realistic path to the transition to the market. The President of the USSR could not go against the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR Nikolai Ryzhkov.
This was the beginning of the end, Stankevich believes.
Two scenarios and no results
On January 14, 1991, Valentin Pavlov was appointed as the new prime minister. A week later, a decree was signed on carrying out a confiscation monetary reform in the country, popularly called “Pavlovsk” after its author.
The reform was implemented in two stages. At the first stage, the circulation of banknotes in denominations of 50 and 100 rubles of the 1961 model was stopped in the USSR. As part of the second stage, according to the decree of the President of the USSR dated March 19, 1991, prices for consumer goods were tripled in the Soviet Union from April 2.
These lines were written by the assistant to the President of the USSR not only under the impression of Pavlov’s reform. The Soviet intelligentsia was crushed by events in the Baltic states.
The power scenario was tested in January 1991 in Lithuania and Latvia. Tanks and airborne troops entered Vilnius, and the television center was captured. 14 people were killed and dozens were injured. In Riga there was a shootout with riot police, five people were killed.
In response to these events, on January 20, about 800 thousand people held a rally in Moscow in support of the Baltic states. The demonstrators demanded the withdrawal of military units from the territories of the union republics that had declared their intention to secede from the USSR, the depoliticization of the army and the resignation of Gorbachev. Among the slogans were: “Today Lithuania, tomorrow Russia. We will not allow it,” “Freedom will die with us.”
According to Stankevich, it was a very dramatic moment; the signal from below was heard, although the power scenario within the central party apparatus was not completely abandoned.
10 days after the referendum on March 17, tanks were brought into Moscow - for the first time during the years of perestroika. This happened before the Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR. A decree was also issued banning rallies and demonstrations from March 26 to April 15.
The third and last attempt to use the force scenario to preserve the USSR took place in August 1991. On the night of August 18-19, in fact, on the eve of the signing of the new Union Treaty, representatives of the highest Soviet leadership, led by USSR Vice-President Gennady Yanaev, formed the State Committee for the State of Emergency in the USSR (GKChP), removed President Gorbachev from power and introduced military technique.
1">
1">
(($index + 1))/((countSlides))
((currentSlide + 1))/((countSlides))
The putsch failed, but along with it the chance to implement the “negotiable” scenario to preserve a unified state on the basis of the new Union Treaty was lost. The process of its preparation, called "Novoogarevsky", was launched on March 17.
As Stankevich recalls, the negotiations were very difficult. For the first time in history, the heads of the republics felt themselves to be full-fledged masters of large territories, something no one could imagine before. And, of course, there were many clashes of personal ambitions and interests; many had fears of crossing some imaginary red line, what if the process were reversed? But nevertheless, a fairly good Union Treaty was agreed upon, which could become the basis for a structure comparable in level of integration to what we have today European Union, and even superior to it, Stankevich believes.
On March 17, 1991, exactly 26 years ago, citizens of the Soviet Union voted in a special all-Union referendum to preserve the USSR. More precisely, they believed that they were voting for this, but the reality turned out to be much more complicated. It included not only betrayal when the Union was dissolved without regard to the plebiscite, but also a much more multi-layered lie.
The question of what kind of referendum it was, who and why it was held, and why it ultimately contributed not to the preservation of the USSR, but the exact opposite, remains relevant.
26 years ago, Soviet citizens went to the polls to speak out about the fate of their country. A vote took place, which to this day is called a referendum on the preservation of the USSR. The overwhelming majority of voters - 77%, or 113 million people in absolute terms - were in favor. But for what exactly? Did the citizens of the USSR understand that they were actually voting not for the preservation, but for the collapse of the country?
Counter-revolution from above
Gradually, the party leadership of the USSR, as a result of its irresponsibility to the people, rotted and eventually decided to “build communism” not for all citizens, but for themselves personally. The Union prevented this, which means it had to be destroyed.
With Gorbachev coming to power, a complete bacchanalia began, the details of which are remembered by many, so we will not describe everything.
Since 1985, a crazy campaign began to brainwash the population, discredit the Soviet Union, communism and everything connected with it. Someone will say that the people were not happy with life.
Where there! Life for the people, as it now turns out, was not much worse than in Europe and much better than now. And the economic growth rate was good. It was just that a counter-revolution was carried out from above, nuclear propaganda attacks were inflicted on the population with fakes, frame-ups, American films and jeans, tons of lies and deliberate acts of discredit (such as hiding consumer goods in warehouses, etc.).
The entire powerful propaganda machine worked for this. External enemies, naturally, helped and applauded the “fifth column” in every possible way. The people were disoriented and confused, the country found itself defenseless against enemies at the very top.
Referendum as shock therapy
The program of political and socio-economic reforms proclaimed by Mikhail Gorbachev’s team in 1985 almost immediately resulted in an acute state crisis. Since 1986, bloody conflicts on interethnic grounds have constantly flared up in the USSR.
First Almaty, then the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, pogroms in Sumgait, Kirovabad, massacre in Kazakh New Uzgen, massacre in Fergana, pogroms in Andijan, Osh, Baku. At the same time, nationalist movements in the Baltics that appeared seemingly out of nowhere were rapidly gaining strength.
From November 1988 to July 1989, the Estonian, Lithuanian, and Latvian SSRs successively declared their sovereignty, soon followed by the Azerbaijani and Georgian SSRs.
Under these conditions, the bulk of Soviet citizens assessed the processes taking place in the country - and this must be recognized! - completely inadequate. Almost no one thought that the conflicts flaring up in the periphery could mean the imminent collapse of the country. The union seemed unshakable. There were no precedents for secession from the Soviet state. There was no legal procedure for the secession of the republics. People were waiting for order to be restored and the situation to normalize.
Instead, on December 24, 1990, the IV Congress of People's Deputies suddenly put the following questions to a vote:
“Do you consider it necessary to preserve the USSR as a single state?”,
“Do you consider it necessary to preserve the socialist system in the USSR?”,
“Do you consider it necessary to preserve Soviet power in the renewed Union?”
Following this, the congress, at the request of Mikhail Gorbachev, decided to submit the issue of preserving the USSR to an all-Union referendum.
In the resolution on its holding, the only question to the Soviet people was formulated as follows:
“Do you consider it necessary to preserve the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics, in which the rights and freedoms of people of any nationality will be fully guaranteed?”
And the answer options: “yes” or “no”.
Some assessments of this document have been preserved, interestingly, from the anti-Soviet-minded democratic public. Thus, People's Deputy of the USSR Galina Starovoitova spoke about “a pile of contradictory and even mutually exclusive concepts.”
And human rights activist, member of the Moscow Helsinki Group Malva Landa stated:
“The question is crafty, designed for people to not be able to figure it out. This is not one, but at least six questions.”
True, human rights activists and democrats at that time believed that this confusion was specially created by the communists to hide in the fog the vague formulations of the upcoming “unpopular and anti-people actions” to stifle free thought and return back to Brezhnev times.
They were not mistaken about one thing - the vague formulations really served to hide the upcoming “unpopular and anti-people actions.” But with the exact opposite sign.
What (or against what) were the citizens of the country asked to vote for? For the preservation of the USSR? Or for a new state structure - a renewed federation? What is it and how do we feel about the phrase “federation... of sovereign republics”? That is, the Soviet people simultaneously voted for the preservation of the USSR and for the “parade of sovereignties”?
The referendum was held in nine Soviet republics. Moldova, Armenia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia sabotaged the referendum on their territory, although the vote did not bypass them either - for example, South Ossetia, Transnistria, Gagauzia, and the north-eastern regions of Estonia joined the expression of will “privately”. Not everything was smooth where the plebiscite was carried out in full. So, in the Kazakh SSR the wording of the question was changed to:
“Do you consider it necessary to preserve the USSR as a Union of equal sovereign states?”
In Ukraine, an additional question was included in the ballot:
“Do you agree that Ukraine should be part of the Union of Soviet Sovereign States on the basis of the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine?”
In both cases (and clearly not by chance), the new state was called the Union of Sovereign States (USS).
According to the results of this referendum, 113,512,812 (77.85%) people voted for preserving the USSR. There are 32,303,977 (22.15%) citizens against the union. 2,757,817 (1.86%) ballots were invalid. Turnout was 185,647,355 (80.03%).
Reassembly is the result of perestroika
The issue of reorganizing the USSR was raised back in the late 1980s. Initially, the talk was about amending the Constitution with the aim of restructuring life “on democratic principles.” The unrest that broke out in the country, followed by the “parade of sovereignties” with the announcement of the priority of republican legislation over union legislation, caused a largely paradoxical reaction.
Instead of suspending reforms until order was restored and the rule of law was established throughout the country, it was decided to speed up the reforms.
In December 1990, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR generally approved the draft of a new Union Treaty proposed by Mikhail Gorbachev to replace the document that had been in force since 1922, uniting the country into a single whole. That is, in the conditions of increasing disintegration of the state, the first president of the USSR decided to dismantle the country and reassemble it again on new principles.
What was the basis of this Union? The draft Union Treaty was finalized in the spring and summer of 1991 during numerous meetings and conferences with republican leaders at Gorbachev’s country residence in Novo-Ogarevo. The country's president actively discussed the reassembly of the state with the growing national elites. The final version of the Treaty on the Union of Sovereign States (GCC is a surprising coincidence with the Kazakh and Ukrainian bulletins, isn't it?) was published in the Pravda newspaper on August 15, 1991. It said, in particular:
“The states that form the Union have full political power and independently determine their national-state structure, system of authorities and administration.”
The issues of forming a law enforcement system and their own army were transferred to the jurisdiction of states, and not even “sovereign republics” (the masks were dropped!), they could independently act in the foreign policy arena on a whole range of issues.
The New Union of Sovereign States was thus just a relatively civilized form of divorce.
What about the referendum? It fit perfectly into the logic of the ongoing processes. Let us recall that in December 1990 the draft of the new Union Treaty was approved for work, on March 17 a referendum was held “on the preservation of the USSR” with a very vague formulation of the question, and already on March 21, 1991, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR issued a resolution in which it stated no less casuistically:
“77% of voters voted in favor of preserving the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Thus, the position on the issue of preserving the USSR on the basis of democratic reforms received support.”
Hence,
“state bodies of the USSR and republics (should) be guided by the decision of the people... in support of the renewed (!) Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.”
“We will work more energetically to complete the work on the new Union Treaty in order to sign it as soon as possible.”
Thus, the new Union Treaty and the strange formation of the USG through simple manipulations were legitimized through a referendum in 1991.
Destruction disguised as renewal
So, if we touch on the background of the referendum, it turns out (as conceived by Gorbachev and others!): the Soviet people do not understand what is happening, they see how their country is being destroyed, but do not know what to do, and turn (allegedly!) to the authorities :
“What are you doing, you bastards! Save the country!
And what do the traitor Gorbachev and the deputies answer to the people:
“Here you go, not the country! A renewed federation, equal, sovereign... Get it.”
The authorities decided to finish off the Motherland under the guise of the will of the people.
But deputies of the Congress and the Supreme Council are obliged to defend the country by the very fact of their existence, without asking anyone about it. Why a referendum? The 1977 Constitution requires this from the authorities and deputies:
- Article 31. The defense of the socialist Fatherland is one of the most important functions of the state and is the work of the entire people.
However, this is the result of the fact that there was no mechanism for accountability to the people for the results of government for the highest elected authorities in the USSR. If deputies at the end of their term of office could be sent to prison for poor performance results, if the people were dissatisfied with them, then such insanity would not exist.
What thoughts arise when reading such a question? What kind of vile formulation is this “renewed federation of equal sovereign republics.”
- Firstly, such a question gave legitimacy to the question of the existence of the USSR in general. Previously, people could not even imagine, “How is it possible that there will be no Union?” That's how! Such a question destroyed the USSR in people's minds.
Imagine that during the war it was not Stalin who led our country, but some irresponsible bastard, like Gorbachev or Yeltsin. The Baltic states, Ukraine, Belarus has been taken, the Germans are already near Moscow, the country is in extreme tension, inspiration is needed, but it doesn’t sound like something like Order 227 “Not a step back!”, but the following:
“Do you consider it necessary to preserve the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics, in which the rights and freedoms of people of any nationality will be fully guaranteed?”
You can even add: “including German”. Who puts such issues to a vote at a time of mortal threat to the country? Only the enemy.
- Secondly, as you have already noticed, the issue is not even about preserving the USSR. Here he is, by the way, to lull vigilance. We are talking about the question of the destruction (replaced with the word “renew”) of the Soviet Union and the formation of something new, some kind of federation. What is this “new”? Has this been explained to people? No, they were deceived.
- Third. People, having read the question, have already begun to think whether there should be this “new Union” or not (and why not, because the Union is better than not the Union), and here they also explain to us why this “new Union” will be better, than our Native Union, our Motherland, which is being destroyed: it will be “renewed” (which means the Native Union is backward, not modern), human rights and freedoms will be fully guaranteed in it (which means that in our Native Union the rights and freedoms of citizens were not guaranteed or this was not done to the fullest extent, everyone was deceived), and even of any nationality (this means that there was no friendship of peoples in our homeland, everyone lied).
After the referendum in the spring-summer of 1991, Gorbachev’s working group within the framework of the so-called. Novo-Ogaryovo process, a project was developed to conclude a new union - Union of Soviet Sovereign Republics How soft, decentralized federation.
The draft of a new agreement on the creation of the Union was initialed twice - on April 23 and June 17, 1991. The final version of the “Treaty on the Union of Sovereign States” was published in the Pravda newspaper on August 15. It stated:
“The states forming the Union have full political power, independently determine their national-state structure, system of government and administration, they can delegate part of their powers to other states party to the Treaty...”
“This agreement... comes into force from the moment of signing... by authorized delegations. For the states that signed it, from the same date the Treaty on the Formation of the USSR of 1922 is considered to have lost force.”
As M. S. Gorbachev said, on August 20, Belarus, Kazakhstan, the RSFSR, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan were supposed to sign a new union treaty, and in the fall Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine and Turkmenistan could join them.
But the State Committee for the State of Emergency, on August 18-21, carried out an unsuccessful attempt to forcibly remove M. S. Gorbachev from the post of President of the USSR, disrupting the signing of the Union Treaty and thereby the liquidation of the Soviet Union:
“...Taking advantage of the freedoms granted, trampling on the newly emerging sprouts of democracy, extremist forces arose that set a course for the liquidation of the Soviet Union, the collapse of the state and the seizure of power at any cost. The results of the national referendum on the unity of the Fatherland have been trampled.”
On September 5, 1991, the V Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR did not let up, adopting the “Declaration of Human Rights and Freedoms” and declared a transition period for the formation of a new system of state relations, the preparation and signing of the Treaty on the Union of Sovereign States.
In the fall of 1991, with the sanction of the central and republican authorities, the working group of the Novo-Ogaryovo process developed a new draft Treaty - on the creation Union of Sovereign States(SSG) like (already!) confederation independent states (“confederal state”).
Preliminary consent to conclude an agreement on December 9, 1991 on the creation of the GCC with its capital in Minsk was given on November 14, 1991 by only seven republics (Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan). Two republics in which referendums on independence were held the day before (Armenia and Ukraine) refused to join the confederal union.
However, on December 8, 1991, the heads of three states (the Republic of Belarus, Russia and Ukraine) at a meeting in Belovezhskaya Pushcha,
“noting that negotiations on the preparation of a new Union Treaty have reached a dead end, the objective process of the republics secession from the USSR and the formation of independent states has become a real fact,”
concluded the Belovezhskaya Agreement on the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States - an intergovernmental and interparliamentary organization that does not have the status of a state.
Thus, the treacherous Belovezhsky conspiracy of Shushkevich, Kravchuk and Yeltsin only forestalled Gorbachev’s team and consolidated the results of the systematic destruction of the Soviet Union. Moreover, they did as the people “asked” them to do in the referendum. Well, almost like that.
Did you want a “renewed federation of equal sovereign republics”? Receive it and sign it!
So, there is no doubt that this referendum was another incredibly vile subversive action of the enemies of the people at the instigation of the West against the USSR.
But there is also no doubt that the majority of the people in the referendum were in favor of preserving the old Native USSR, their Motherland, and went to vote precisely for this.
On March 17, 1991, a referendum was held in which the majority of citizens voted to preserve the USSR.
In six republics (Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Georgia, Moldova, Armenia), perestroika has already done everything that was needed, so the highest authorities refused to hold a referendum. That is, they thereby committed high treason and did not allow the people to express their will.
In other republics the results were as follows.
Our Central Asian brothers have become an example of having a strong sense of statehood. They, who still preserved communal traditions, had a much higher understanding of the need to live in a united and therefore strong country than the Russians. Unfortunately, but true.
Where were there more traitors?
In terms of the level of betrayal, the capitals and the birthplace of Boris Yeltsin - the Sverdlovsk region - were ahead of everyone.
Below is a table where red the shade indicates republics and regions with a share of those voting FOR higher than the average for the Union, blue- below. As you can see, the hatred of the rest of Russia for Muscovites is quite natural. That's where the main responsibility lies - the capital.
Please note that even in Checheno-Ingushetia, the percentage of those who voted for preserving the Union turned out to be higher than the national average and almost the same as in the USSR. So much for the Chechen separatists. By that time, the democrats had not yet led the scumbag scumbags by the hand and put them at the head of Chechnya.
We know from history that capturing the minds of the capital is key.
Let us give an unsuccessful comparison in terms of motives and goals, but still an illustrative one. In the elections to the Constituent Assembly of 1917, the Bolsheviks throughout Russia gained 22.4% (the Social Revolutionaries were the first - 39.5%), but they won by a large margin in Moscow (47.9%), Moscow region (55.8%) , Petrograd (48.7%), Minsk (63.1%).
In 1991, Moscow, St. Petersburg, Sverdlovsk region. were among the progressives who voted for the introduction of the post of President of the RSFSR, and later among the progressives who voted for Yeltsin in the elections.
It is clear that the propaganda blow was primarily aimed at the capitals. There was more money allocated, more bribes, more falsifications. But still, there are actually more sincere idiots who did not want to “feed unnecessary republics.”
So what happens? In general, the Soviet people, some to a lesser extent, some to a greater extent, withstood the nuclear attack on their consciousness and intuitively understood that they were being deceived, and therefore supported the preservation of the Soviet Union.
But it was not enough to vote, what does it even mean to vote for the preservation of the Union, when “the Germans are already near Moscow,” or rather in the Kremlin, at the very top. It is pointless. It was necessary to fight for the Union, including with arms in hand. After all, this was required of all citizens by the Constitution of the USSR.
- Constitution. Article 62. A citizen of the USSR is obliged to protect the interests of the Soviet state and help strengthen its power and authority.
- Defense of the socialist Fatherland is the sacred duty of every citizen of the USSR.
- Treason to the Motherland is the gravest crime against the people.
It is clear that there were no leaders, this did not happen, this did not happen, and Yanaev’s hands were shaking... Why did everyone unanimously forget about their main duty as a Citizen?
AFTERWORD
In 1996, the State Duma of the Russian Federation adopted a resolution “On the legal force for the Russian Federation - Russia of the results of the USSR referendum on March 17, 1991 on the issue of preserving the USSR.” And since there was no other referendum on this issue, it declared illegal the 1991 resolution of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR “On the denunciation of the Treaty on the Formation of the USSR” and legally recognized the USSR as an existing political entity.
That is, even deputies of the Russian State Duma, five years after the referendum, still believed that it was “about preserving the USSR.” Which, as we have seen at least from the wording of the question, is not true. The referendum was about “reformatting” the country.
This, however, does not at all negate the paradoxical fact that people - citizens of the country, in spite of everything, without delving into the formulations, voted precisely for the preservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. But all 113 million who voted were subsequently cynically deceived.
The empire was destroyed against the will of its people. It is customary to blame Gorbachev, Yeltsin and his associates for this. However, the leaders of other republics were no better. It’s just that some people had a bigger pie, some people had a smaller one. Driving something to the West for hard currency is the dream of any late Soviet and or communist leader.
Ideally, the countries of the Eurasian Union should finally form a single space with a completely new understanding of both national sovereignty and unity. Now in the world there is such a thing as a consolidated West. Russia and its partners have a chance to create a consolidated East - a natural storehouse, a technology factory and the main military power of the BRICS, SCO, and EAEU countries. As Russian President Vladimir Putin correctly noted at one time: “Whoever does not regret the collapse of the USSR does not have a heart. And the one who wants to restore it to its previous form has no head.”
And it’s hard to disagree with this statement. Today we have a unique opportunity, based on new integration associations, not to repeat the mistakes of the past. Which will require, first of all, a change in the concept of building relations between countries. Interaction according to the principle: everyone pulls the blanket over themselves and wants to grab a bigger piece - this is a short-sighted policy, the result of which is the weakening of the Union, which our Western “partners” take advantage of.
Modern integration processes require a qualitatively new management corps, and at all levels of government: from supranational bodies to local officials. Management literacy (based on a sound management theory), the presence of a broad outlook and personal moral and ethical qualities are the key to the future development of the Union.
Unfortunately, today we can observe precisely the lack of personnel in the EAEU, which leads to many conflicts, misunderstandings between the parties and low rates of integration.
The failure of the Eurasian project does not bode well for either Russia or the other participating countries.
Nazi nationalists actively oppose Eurasian integration. And everywhere: in Belarus, and in the Russian Federation, and in Kazakhstan. They are not the smartest, but the worst enemies of their peoples. However, the Nazis are weak, so they seek support either from the West or from the international terrorist international.
The communists, in turn, dream of the revival of the Union on socialist principles. Whether this is good or bad is a separate question. However, this is hardly possible. In Russia and the former Soviet republics, the thirst for profit for a long time, if not forever, defeated social justice in people's hearts.
Now the collapse of the USSR is called the largest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century. The naive dreams of those who believed that each republic would individually achieve prosperity did not come true. The common market collapsed, technological and industrial chains disintegrated, new countries closed customs from each other, introduced their own money and even visas. Wars broke out in some regions. All this is a direct consequence of the collapse of the USSR.
What happened in 1991, meaning the collapse of the USSR, was not the result of internal processes taking place in the country at that time. The choice that was made 26 years ago was imposed by the West. Those people who were in power then betrayed the country and its multinational people.
The people critically perceive the reality in which they exist. In this situation, he turns to either the past or the future. But the future is uncertain, and what happened in the past is attractive to many. Therefore, in contrast to liberal ideas, there appears a tendency towards conservatism, towards traditional values that existed in both pre-revolutionary and Soviet society.
The way the authorities handled the results of the All-Union referendum on the preservation of the USSR can be called one hundred percent betrayal. People in power thought only about their own interests, about obtaining selfish benefits for themselves, they felt a desire to divide and appropriate state property. They were not at all interested in the opinion of the people and their fate.
Youth Analytical Group
