Russia is going through a turning point - where will Putin go? A turning point. When you need to be patient and be content with the fact that there is a turning point

Since the mid-80s. and especially since the beginning of the 90s. In Russia, as well as in the USSR as a whole, serious changes began to occur. These changes affected all aspects of the socio-economic and especially political life of Soviet society. They proceeded very quickly, were controversial and had serious consequences for Russia and all the republics that were part of the Soviet Union. At the same time, the political events that took place in the Soviet Union and its republics also affected the process of world political history. Today it is difficult to objectively understand all these events and especially their consequences, to give an unambiguous answer to all the questions that arise in this regard. It will take a long time before historians give convincing answers to all these questions. Today, the point of view and assessments of researchers are contradictory, largely subjective and far from coincident. This is natural, since a deep and objective understanding of these events will require time, accumulation and study of comprehensive and large documentary material.

In this chapter, within the framework of the “History of Russia” curriculum, such specific issues as: perestroika, its controversial nature and consequences will be briefly covered; political change in the social and state system of Russia; certain aspects of the political history of Russia in post-perestroika times.

By the beginning of the 80s. The Soviet Union reached a new technical level, industries developed (electronics, precision instrumentation, nuclear industry, etc.). The creation of production, research and production, agro-industrial, and inter-collective farm associations has become a widespread phenomenon. A unified energy system, a transport system, an automatic communications system, and an oil and gas supply system were formed and operated. Economic ties between the republics and regions have become closer. However, the administrative-command management system, the practice of planning and the guardianship of policymakers over enterprises remained.

The country's leadership at the CPSU congresses repeatedly made decisions aimed at overcoming the dictates of departmental bureaucracy, developing economic methods of management, and expanding the independence of enterprises. However, these decisions remained on paper. There was no transition from extensive to intensive economic development. The scientific and technological process was sluggish. Progressive changes continued to be hampered by the old management system. Serious deformations have accumulated in planning. Miscalculations were made in commodity-money relations. Cooperative forms of farming were underestimated. Economic control over the use of forms of ownership has weakened. Gross miscalculations were made in economic policy.

The policy of increasing the income of the population, increasing their education and improving living conditions contributed to the development of needs and increased demand for new, higher quality goods and consumer goods. However, the production of consumer goods, organization of food supplies, development of the service sector, trade, transport, recreation and cultural industries, and medical care were at a low level. In the 60s - first half of the 80s. a deep need arose for socio-economic renewal, for the development of new policies and new priorities. However, this need was not realized. As a result, deformations in economic and social life intensified.

For a deeper understanding of the above problems, let us dwell on a brief description of the political development of the USSR.

From 1961 to 1985, the number of deputies to local councils - representatives of workers - almost doubled. The same process was characteristic of the Supreme Soviets of the Union republics. Similar processes characterized the development of other public organizations, trade unions, and the Komsomol.

In the first half of the 80s. their numbers were constantly growing. By the beginning of the 80s. The trade unions of the USSR united 130 million workers and employees, about 12 million collective farmers. By this time, 98.6% of all workers were covered by trade union membership. The number of Komsomol was in the early 70s. 27 million people, ten years later, in the early 80s, - 41.7 million people.

One of the most important indicators of socio-political life is the nature of the control activities of workers. By 1980, there were about 1.3 million groups and posts of people's control in the country. On January 1, 1986, approximately 5 million workers were members of the people's control. At the same time, in the political practice of the late 70s - early 80s. the actual impact of workers' control activities on the process of policy formation and implementation was extremely insignificant.

The crisis also struck the CPSU. After the 20th Congress of the CPSU, attempts were made to overcome the consequences of Stalin's personality cult and to democratize party life. However, in real political practice there was no genuine democracy.

A clear stratification of communists has developed into the party elite, the leadership layer and the ordinary party masses. The role of elected party bodies was weakened. Real power passed to the executive structures of the CPSU - the bureau, secretaries of party committees, and often simply to the apparatus of party bodies.

The logic of the command-administrative system led to the fact that the leadership role of the CPSU was transformed into management activities to solve current economic, socio-economic, cultural and other problems. Party committees took over many current operational and administrative functions. Team methods and approaches began to dominate their activities. Administrative and administrative work practically replaced political methods of leadership.

Since the beginning of the 60s. Industry and agricultural specialists began to be promoted to the party apparatus. In many respects, it was not taken into account whether new personnel were able to conduct explanatory work with people, actively participate in political discussions, and foresee the social consequences of decisions made. As a result, the technocratic approach and the desire for a command style sharply increased in the practice of the work of party committees, which could not but affect the quality of all work.

In the 60s - first half of the 80s. The growth of the CPSU was largely formed artificially. Approximately 10 million people were accepted into the party. As a result, its numbers by the mid-80s. was more than 19 million.

As a result, the CPSU ended up with many politically inert, socially and morally immature people.

By the beginning of the 80s. It became clear that the goals set by the CPSU Program, adopted in 1961 at the 20th Congress, would not be realized in the near historical future. A new ideological and theoretical platform was required. Its essence was expressed by the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee L. I. Brezhnev. At a ceremonial meeting in honor of the 50th anniversary of the Great October Revolution, he stated that the main result of the historical path traversed by the Soviet people was the construction of a developed socialist society. The concept of extensive construction of communism was replaced by the concept of developed socialism. In the promotion of this concept until the mid-80s. real socialism was presented as the highest achievement of social progress for the given time.

Thus, by the mid-80s. Despite elements of some democratization of the political life of Soviet society, numerous deformations persisted and even intensified. The sphere of legislative and representative power was formalized. The role of the party-administrative bureaucracy sharply increased. At the same time, there was no real control activity of workers. The independence of public organizations has weakened. In addition, they expressed little of the real interests of those groups of workers on whose behalf they spoke. The judiciary also remained dependent. The CPSU was rapidly losing its leadership and organizing role among the working people. It ceased to be the vanguard of Soviet society.

Under the current conditions, perestroika and, on its basis, the creation of a qualitatively new political and socio-economic situation were required to significantly improve the social living conditions of workers. The last General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, the first and only President of the USSR, who began perestroika in the spring of 1986 and stood at its origins and subsequent events, M. S. Gorbachev, in the article “New Politics in the New Russia” noted: “Perestroika is not Gorbachev’s invention. This is not even the invention of a group of people. Attempts to reform the country were made more than once after the death of Stalin. The first, most courageous attempt, fraught with the danger of being overthrown two or three times, was made by Khrushchev. Then stabilization occurred, but one that was followed by conservation and revival, resuscitation of Stalinist standards of life, and in some ways even worse. But even at this time, attempts were made to achieve changes, including Kosygin’s reform of 1965. In the same way, there were scattered attempts to reform our agriculture, capital construction and other areas. the understanding that we are losing momentum is our most important advantage; that five-year after five-year periods we are beginning to lose ground, we are inferior in labor productivity: productivity in agriculture began to lag behind America by 5 times, and by 2.5–3 times in industry. We were being ruined by a wasteful, costly, all-consuming economy. They patched up holes with the help of oil, the oil boom, which occurred precisely during the reign of Brezhnev, and also with the help of vodka, got the people drunk... In addition, they began to take out loans from savings banks and cover the budget deficit, which had existed for a long time, but about which no one tells us never reported. Salaries were paid, people saved their money and invested it again. In other words, no matter what sphere we took, everyone was driven into a dead end.

Therefore, perestroika and reforms were needed" (Free Thought. 1992. No. 13).

Perestroika in the country began with the preparation and implementation of reforms in all areas of socio-political, socio-economic, scientific and cultural life. These reforms were prepared from above, on the initiative of the center, or more precisely, the leadership of the CPSU. When it became clear that economic reforms were not progressing, the question arose: what to do? There was a lot of discussion on this issue in the Politburo, the CPSU Central Committee, the Secretariat of the CPSU Central Committee, and in the Party Central Committee itself. There was only one conclusion - political reforms are needed. The Plenum of the CPSU Central Committee decided to hold the 19th Party Conference, for discussion of which all the cardinal issues of political reform were brought up. At the conference, different positions were determined not only among its delegates, but also among the leadership of the CPSU Central Committee. The implementation of reforms faced difficult problems that required comprehensive understanding and solutions. One of them is the national question.

The national question, in the form in which Soviet society inherited it from Tsarist Russia, was resolved. The Soviet people were brought up in the spirit of friendship and pride in their achievements. The national statehood of many peoples of the Soviet Union was formed. Education became available to people of all nationalities, national universities, theaters, cinema, and literature were created. But at the same time, repressions against entire peoples were not forgotten. In many ways, the republics remained powerless. Not all was well with the development of national languages ​​and cultures. Essentially, after the XII Congress of the Communist Party (1923), the national question was not independently and specifically discussed at party congresses.

Meanwhile, inattention to the national issue led to deformation in the field of nation-state building.

At the same time, in post-Soviet states there is a strong desire to maintain connections with the outside world and give them a new quality. They consider the entry of their states into global or regional processes as a national task.

Being a multinational state, Russia, which has always fulfilled the historical mission of collecting lands, is seriously interested in the commonwealth, in good relations with all countries. For example, no matter what problems arise between the two countries today, ties with Russia are also of great importance for Ukraine. The economy of the latter is highly dependent on the import of Russian oil, natural gas, timber, cars, and many technologies.

Objectively, the nature of these processes between the CIS countries will sooner or later make its way. Historical experience confirms this. Of particular interest in this regard is the article by A. M. Salmin in the magazine “Polis” (1992. No. 1–2), devoted to national-state relations after the collapse of the USSR. As the author writes, the reasons for the death of powerful states are never completely clear... Not only the USSR during the chaotic “perestroika” period, but also the Union, which approached the threshold of reforms in 1985, had little in common with the former state under this name.

On December 30, 1922, the Declaration on the formation of the Soviet Union was adopted as a union of four formally independent state entities: the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Belarus, and the Transcaucasian Federation, which included 26 autonomous entities.

In the Union of 1922, the Russian Empire was essentially reunited, with the exception of Poland, Finland and the later reintegrated Baltic states. At the same time, it is necessary to remember that the RSFSR of that time is not at all the same as today’s. Something similar can be said about Ukraine and Belarus. In 1922, the Russian Federation included all the current republics of Central Asia and a number of regions and regions of Ukraine and Belarus.

In 1922, there were 33 national-state and national-autonomous entities on the territory of the USSR. Their further national-state development was associated with the solution of the multifaceted problem of relations between the center, union and autonomous republics, autonomous regions and districts within the borders of the united Soviet Union.

However, the implementation of reforms was stopped, and essentially disrupted, by the extraordinary events that occurred in August 1991 and went down in history as the “GKChP Putsch” (State Committee for the State of Emergency), an attempted coup. Their initiators were the then leaders of the country. Among them: the Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, heads of power ministries and departments.

M. S. Gorbachev wrote: “...The August events pushed the processes of disintegration of the country, which had already gained great speed by that time. At the same time, the breakdown of the conspiracy and the coup dealt a heavy blow to the reactionary forces. They were weakened, and significantly , and this cleared the platform for accelerating reforms. How were these opportunities used, how were they disposed of? Last fall, we were faced with a choice. It was made in a statement by the president of the country and the leaders of 11 republics, in the decisions of the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR. Further, on Based on these fundamental decisions and documents, we came to an economic agreement, which was initialed by eight republics and was in the Supreme Soviets for study and ratification" (Free Thought. 1992. No. 13).

We will not dwell in detail on further developments of events. Let us note only the main ones. After the August shock, Gorbachev made his last official visit to Madrid, where he met with leaders of the Western world and enlisted their support to save the Union. As a result, on November 25, 1991, a version of the Union Treaty was prepared, which took into account the new realities of life in the multinational Soviet society. But the ensuing discussion among political leaders stopped at determining the nature of the future state formation. Gorbachev advocated a “union state” with a new center, which would be given the appropriate powers by decision of the Union members. B. N. Yeltsin, the President of Russia, with the support of Shushkevich, unexpectedly opposed a unified state. The current situation turned out to be difficult to overcome and difficult to predict.

While first in Minsk, and then in Belovezhskaya Pushcha (not far from Minsk) the leaders of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine (Yeltsin, Shushkevich and Kravchuk) met behind closed doors, M.S. Gorbachev managed to give two detailed interviews attempting to explain the current situation. But by the time his interview was broadcast on public television, the union state had ceased to exist.

On December 21, 1991, a meeting of the leaders of 11 republics took place. The Interfax news agency was the first to publish a historical message about the results of this meeting: “The USSR ceased to exist.” Next came express information No. 5: “M. S. Gorbachev notifies of the termination of the institution of the presidency in the USSR” (Moscow News. 1992. November 15).

The sudden end of the USSR shocked the world. A great power, spread over the vast Eurasian space, with a population of more than 320 million, and a powerful military-strategic potential that was recently comparable to the United States, has disappeared from the political map of the world. Having liquidated the USSR, the former republics established the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), immediately declaring that the latter was neither a state nor a national entity. The goal of the CIS is to facilitate the transition of the former republics to a qualitatively new state. Its main function is to harmonize the policies of member states in areas of mutual interest.

By this time, the interests of the former republics coincided in the main thing - in the desire to complete the process of their own sovereignization as quickly as possible. Each of them wanted to fill their rights as much as possible with “material” content - to property, budget, taxes, etc. Each dreamed of an independent foreign economic policy, of speedy diplomatic recognition by the outside world.

The desire of the republics to finally free themselves from the central authorities and to rely “on their own strength” was spurred by the situation of a deep economic crisis and the social instability of the population.

The aggravation of conflicts on ethnic, religious, and interregional grounds pushed the leadership of the republics to create a national guard, seize allied military communications and weapons located on their territory, and in some cases, army units.

Republican leaders were in a hurry to adopt acts of independence for their republics in connection with the processes of so-called “internal sovereignization” that had begun in many of them, covering their own national and cultural autonomies and threatening to develop into the disintegration of the republics themselves.

There remained a burden of controversial and unresolved problems - from union property to external debts. The mechanism of bilateral treaties and agreements between the republics that began to take shape turned out to be clearly insufficient for their settlement. And “this was one of the main reasons that forced the leaders of 11 states to create the CIS.

The emergence of the Commonwealth was greeted by the international community with very cautious optimism. On the one hand, a rather amorphous formation arose, unknown to world practice.

Three problems have deeply worried politicians and the public at home and abroad: how the CIS states will behave on issues of nuclear weapons and armed forces, internal borders, and market reform.

The obligations assumed by the CIS participants meet generally accepted international standards. The parties confirmed their commitment to the goals and principles of the UN, and pledged to comply with international standards in the field of human and peoples' rights. They guaranteed the fulfillment of international obligations arising from treaties and agreements signed by the USSR.

The Commonwealth Agreement was born in an extreme situation that required quick and decisive action from the leaders of the republics.

At the same time, serious disagreements, sometimes quite acute, began to appear within the CIS. Differences in the Commonwealth very soon acquired a conflictual character. First of all, this affected military-defense problems.

Thanks to Russia’s agreement with Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan, it was possible to find a solution to the problem of unified control over strategic weapons. The readiness of the CIS countries to eliminate tactical nuclear weapons was also confirmed.

However, many issues remained unresolved: starting with how to coordinate control of the “nuclear button” simultaneously from four remote control panels (in Moscow, Kiev, Alma-Ata, Minsk), and ending with financial ones - who and how much will pay for the destruction of nuclear warheads and missiles.

The main subject of acute disagreement in the CIS primarily arose between Ukraine and Russia - the division of the army and navy. Here two concepts, two approaches collided. While one group of countries - Russia and the Central Asian republics - advocated the preservation of unified armed forces under a common command, the other advocated the transfer of military units and weapons located on their territories to national jurisdiction.

With the sovereignty of the republics, the question of borders and territories arose. As union structures, property, and the army are divided, and statehood is being established in the republics themselves, the determination of the boundaries and status of territories grows into a major national-state problem common to all CIS countries.

Russia not only benefited from the liquidation of the Union, but also lost, if we compare its current geopolitical position with that of the Russian state before October 1917. Its territories have shrunk, its western borders have moved east. She lost the most important ports and access to the sea in the Baltic. It is known that Russia borders on three Baltic states, two of which have already officially made claims to its territory. Relations with Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania are far from ideal and it is quite obvious that they will not change in the near future. There are problems of borders, human rights in these states, and smuggling on a huge scale. With the Baltic countries gaining independence, Russia lost four strategically important trading ports on the Baltic coast - Novotallinsky, Riga, Ventspils and Klaipeda, and in the foreseeable future it will hardly be able to compensate for these losses. In 1992, transshipment of one ton of oil through Ventspils cost Russia 7 US dollars, or almost 60 rubles. In addition, if we take into account the vulnerability of communications with the Kaliningrad region through Lithuania, the importance of the “Baltic zone” becomes obvious. Russia today is also concerned about the surge in smuggling of strategic goods to the Baltic countries. In mid-1992, according to estimates by the Russian Customs Committee, goods worth 5–7 million rubles (metals, especially non-ferrous, gasoline, building materials, wood, currency, precious metals) were smuggled from Russian territory to the Baltic states every day ( International life. 1993. No. 8. P. 129).

Due to the lack of legislative registration of borders, many territorial disputes have arisen in Russia. In addition to disputes with the Baltic states, Russia has serious differences with Ukraine over Crimea, which Russia lost at the behest of Khrushchev. There are over 30 more border territories that may cause political complications. In fact, three large Russian regions with virgin lands and rich natural resources at one time, at the stroke of Stalin’s pen, went to Kazakhstan.

The independence of the Central Asian and Transcaucasian republics changed the political structure on the southeastern borders of Russia. In Russia itself, the Tatar and Chechen republics declared themselves independent. German national regions were created in the Volga region, Altai and Siberia. The South Ossetian Republic, located in Georgia, seeks to unite with the North Ossetian Republic as part of the Russian Federation. The political situation in the North Caucasus has sharply worsened. Bloody clashes took place here between North Ossetia and Ingushetia. In December 1994, Russia's own war with Chechnya essentially began. It will take a lot of time to solve all these problems in a civilized manner.

And one more problem related to the collapse of the USSR and the development of Russia. This is the problem with the concept of “empire” as applied to the USSR. In this regard, one of the publications rightly posed the question: if the USSR is an “empire,” then what kind? "In the European empires (meaning the British, French, Italian, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish), which ended their existence during the first three decades after the end of the Second World War, the metropolis was always clearly opposed to the colonial periphery. The metropolis always had its own legislative and executive system and judicial power. Only citizens of the metropolis had the right to elect national legislative institutions, and in presidential republics, the head of state. The population of colonies and other dependent territories was never included in the number of voters of the metropolitan authorities" (Polis. 1992. No. 1–2).

Russia was created on a different ideological basis. The ideas of Christianization or acculturation of peoples did not often and only for a short time appear in the public consciousness of Russians, for example, attempts to Christianize the Kazan Tatars under Elizaveta Petrovna (mid-18th century) or Russification and conversion of Latvians and Estonians to Orthodoxy under Alexander III and during the reign of Nicholas II .

The main goal of the empire, which was created in Russia over four centuries from the annexation of Kazan in 1552 and Astrakhan in 1554, was not religious and cultural assimilation, but the security of the Russian state. For example, the Volozhsk peoples have mostly preserved the Muslim religion, language, and historical memory to this day. The rise of Tatar and Bashkir nationalism, the revival of Islam at the present time are clear evidence of this. In the same way, the languages ​​and culture of the Muslims of the North Caucasus, the Lamaists of Southern Siberia and the Kalmyk steppe, the pre-Chalcedonian Armenian Christians, the Lutherans of the Baltic states and Finland, and the Catholics of Poland and Lithuania were preserved. Russia entered the Soviet era as a country of hundreds of languages ​​and dialects, many religions, confessions and sects. In the so-called “Soviet empire” there was nothing similar to the classical empires of the West.

After the collapse of the USSR, the country faced great difficulties in the socio-economic and political fields. In this regard, we present an assessment of the state of the Russian economy, given in the resolution of the Council of Ministers of the Russian Federation of November 6, 1993 on the socio-economic situation of the country: in January-September 1993, compared to the same period last year, the national income produced decreased by 15 %, the volume of industrial production - by 16.5%, the total debt of industrial enterprises and construction organizations increased, amounting to 11.3 trillion. rubles, the pace of privatization of large and medium-sized enterprises slowed down, and it was not possible to achieve an increase in the living standards of the population.

Everyone seemed to want the introduction of a market. At first, the conviction that it was necessary to introduce a market as quickly as possible, and then the same heavenly life as in the West would begin in the former USSR, took hold of the intelligentsia. And then this conviction was transmitted to almost all sectors of society. Nobody thought about the fact that the faster the market is introduced, the greater the suffering of the people. This is understandable, since there are hundreds of market farms in the world, but only a few countries have a high standard of living.

The socio-economic and political situation of the early 90s. are also characterized by such negative phenomena as a large wave of crime in various fields, corruption, bribery, and open banditry. Let us note that corruption has always existed: both in pre-revolutionary Russia and in socialist Russia. But in modern conditions its scale is incommensurable. The reasons for its flourishing lie in the processes that take place in modern Russian society: the formation of the market; the emergence of the rich, the so-called “new Russians”; privatization essentially for next to nothing.

During the years of perestroika, it seemed that the country was entering a new cycle of modernization of social relations, aimed at the formation of political democracy, demonopolization of the economy, the liberation of private initiative, and the emergence of labor motivation. These transformations were supposed to increase the level of social well-being and create socio-economic and political comfort for the disclosure of the spiritual, creative, moral potential of the individual. At the same time, the state was assigned the role of guarantor of the preservation of the social condition of the population and those human rights that were achieved at the previous stage of development.

Expectations were not met.

Firstly, because by the beginning of the 90s. The industrial economy was almost completely destroyed, brought to a state where it lost the ability to adapt to new, and above all financial and political, conditions of reproduction.

Secondly, because by this time creative work was almost completely discredited, the social status of the worker was falsified, and the value guidelines that define civic priorities were rejected.

Thirdly, because the economic management system was disorganized. The corporate interests of officials led to the creation of closed structures that replaced national economic goals with the selfish plans of new groups that quickly took possession of everything that they had only managed before the “perestroika” policy.

Finally, fourthly, because under the guise of reforms a fierce struggle for power unfolded. Its results are multifaceted and devastating.

§ 2. Political change of the state system of Russia

In the fierce struggle for power under the banner of carrying out multifaceted reforms, the 90s were the most tragic for the political history of Russia. became the October events of 1993 in Moscow. The events associated with the bloody drama of October 3–4, 1993 and its consequences occupy a large place in the political history of the Russian state.

There are many opinions expressed in the literature regarding the nature and consequences of these events. In many ways they are subjective. This is understandable, since the events of those controversial and terrible days are too fresh in the memory of the people. Therefore, we will limit ourselves to only a brief retelling of periodical press reports about the October events in Moscow, as well as data from a number of publications.

On the eve of these events, the political situation in the country sharply deteriorated. Society was gripped by anxiety caused by a serious confrontation between the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation and the President of Russia. The split in the country's top government and political leadership has worsened. None of the laws adopted by the two branches of government were essentially implemented.

The situation became explosive after on September 21, 1993, B. N. Yeltsin, by his Decree, suspended the activities of the Congress of People's Deputies and the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation. At the same time, a Decree of the President of Russia on gradual constitutional reform in the Russian Federation was adopted. These measures led to an immediate reaction from the Supreme Council. On September 22, 1993, the Supreme Council, by its resolution, declared the Presidential Decree invalid as contrary to the Constitution of the Russian Federation. All these actions and events politically split society into two opposing camps: one supports the Supreme Council, the other supports the President.

The irreconcilable dual power ended with a brutal decision in favor of the President. Army units, tanks, and artillery were brought up to the White House, where the Supreme Council was located, and targeted shooting of the people in the building began. Everyone who was watching TV on October 3 could see a live broadcast of American television about the storming of the White House. Of course, the forces were unequal.

To this day, debates and discussions continue about the nature of the October events. But, obviously, not everything has been said yet. Historians will have to return to their analysis more than once. Nevertheless, we note that practically for the overwhelming majority of the country’s population it was clear: in the October events there were neither winners nor losers. It was a national tragedy, which was a consequence of the anti-people policy of hapless functionaries, a tragedy that had a serious impact on the state of the entire Russian society. Its consequences will affect the political life of Russia for a long time.

A number of recent publications provide generalizing data characterizing not only the events of the autumn of 1993, but also subsequent pages of the country's political history. In this regard, the monograph published in 1995 by the Russian Independent Institute of Social and National Problems entitled “Power and Opposition. Russian Political Process of the 20th Century” is of undoubted interest.

Back in September 1993, at the height of the struggle with the Congress of People's Deputies and the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation, B. N. Yeltsin issued a Decree, according to which early presidential elections were scheduled for June 1994. On November 16, 1993, answering questions from a correspondent of the Izvestia newspaper about the completion of work on the draft Constitution of the Russian Federation, B. N. Yeltsin, in particular, said: “I will not deny that the powers of the President in the draft are really significant. did you want? In a country accustomed to kings or “leaders”, in a country where clear interest groups have not formed, their bearers have not been identified, where normal parties are just emerging; in a country where executive discipline is extremely weak, where legal nihilism, - in such a country, rely only mainly on the parliament? Yes, in six months, if not earlier, people will demand a dictator. Such a dictator will quickly be found, I assure you, and perhaps in the same parliament "(Izvestia. 1993. November 16 ).

The short-lived election campaign took place in an atmosphere where radical and liberal democratic forces were waiting for favorable results from the people's will. The undoubted victory of B. N. Yeltsin and his supporters was that they managed to convince society, without serious excesses, to recognize the results of the referendum on the new Constitution as an act of its “national approval.” Achieving such a result, apparently, was the main point of the “willing” actions on December 12, 1993. According to official data, 32.9 million people voted for the Basic Law of the state (58.4% of those who took part in the referendum and 32 .3% of the total number of voters in the country). Is the Constitution legitimate if it does not receive even a third of the votes of potential voters? This was the first reaction of the opposition to the results of the referendum. Then, assessments by a number of domestic and Western experts began to appear in favor of the version that the results of the referendum were rigged in general. But such actions did not cause a serious sympathetic reaction in society. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation received 65 seats in the Federal Assembly, the Agrarian Party - an opponent of private land ownership - 47 deputy seats.

The Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, the party of V.V. Zhirinovsky (70 parliamentary seats), literally burst into the political life of the country as a “third force”, demonstrating firsthand to the executive power that demagoguery and populism are an unstable foundation for those in power, because in difficult times “official” populism can always be competed by clever populists “from the outside.” Without going into all the details of the alignment of political forces that was determined as a result of the elections, it should be noted that the newly elected parliament did not become less oppositional than the Supreme Council and the Congress of People's Deputies of the Russian Federation, which were removed from power at such a high cost. True, the real political possibilities of the new parliament have become much more modest. And this limitation of the functions of both the State Duma and the Federation Council indicates that they not only cannot seriously influence politics in the country, but are also unable to significantly correct the course of the President and the Government.

The political amnesty at the end of February 1994 created favorable conditions for the implementation of such a political action as the signing at the end of April of the “Treaty of Social Accord” by representatives of a number of government agencies, political parties, public organizations, including trade unions. This act, which, of course, gave the main dividends to the executive branch, can rightfully be regarded not as a formalization of what has happened, but as a manifestation in society of the desire to avoid confrontation, as well as the country’s extreme fatigue from constant strife.

The second half of 1994 and the beginning of 1995 passed for both the authorities and the opposition in a mode of tactical maneuvering. The authorities continued to look for ways to consolidate their still fragile stabilization in a wide range, including the desire to give breath to distracting games of “national harmony”, and attempts to convince the public of the irreversibility of economic stabilization and the imminence of recovery in the country; and measures to strengthen security forces, rally them around the President, demonstrate the effectiveness of the “iron fist” strike (sending troops into Chechnya); and seeking ways and means to delay the presidential election, etc.

The events in Chechnya at the end of 1994 - beginning of 1995, however, raised the “opposition tone” in the country, expanded the front of the opposition itself, making its social and political spectrum more capacious, to one degree or another attracted new detachments into its ranks, and revealed a tendency towards bringing together individual forces opposing the regime. But how serious these processes turned out to be and what results they led to is difficult to say.

Trying to understand the problem of where Russia is heading, it is necessary to first assess where it finds itself at this stage of the “revolution from above.” It seems that Russian society by the end of 1994 - early 1995. stalled somewhere in the gap between the totalitarian past and the very vague future expected by domestic liberals. Deformed socialism is being replaced with greater certainty by an ugly conglomerate, tending to acquire a stagnant character. Preparations for the next parliamentary elections in 1996 were already in full swing in the winter and spring of 1995, largely determining both the foreign and domestic policies of the country. But at the same time, the main social forces (no matter what place they occupy in the social spectrum) failed to overcome the shock generated by the events of the “new October”. Only time will clarify how long the consequences of this “shell shock”, further aggravated by the “Chechnya syndrome”, will affect the Russian political process.

§ 3. Russia under the new political system

A new stage in Russia's socio-political development began in extremely difficult conditions. This is explained by the fact that practical actions (and not only by the government) to implement the strategic goals of the reforms, although necessary in essence, did not produce significant positive results. To characterize the situation in Russia, the media used various terms: dead-end, catastrophic, explosive, etc. By the mid-90s. the answer to the question of where Russia is going no longer sounded mysterious.

In the economic sphere, the decline in production and technological backwardness began to develop into the stage of destruction of industrial and agricultural potential, historically established connections and infrastructure. Domestic producers are disappearing from the domestic market; scientific and technological progress is blocked; raw materials and trade and intermediary business are crowding out industrial entrepreneurship from the country’s economy and financial system. Negative processes are also developing in the country’s agricultural and industrial complex. The national income generated in Russia in 1993 was 57% of the 1990 level; industrial products - 63; capital investments - 43%. For comparison: during the four years of the Great Patriotic War, when Ukraine and Belarus were occupied, half of the European part of the country was destroyed; annual losses in production levels, even in 1942, did not exceed 23%. These data are presented in the monograph of the famous historian, professor V.I. Zhukov “Russia: state, prospects and contradictions of development” published in 1995 by the Soyuz publishing house.

Characterizing the lag of Russia from the United States in these years, the author provides the following information: “According to the State Statistics Committee of the Russian Federation, the lag of the Russian economy from the United States over the four years of reforms increased by 64%. The physical volume of the gross domestic product (GDP) of Russia at the end of 1993 was 13 .6% of the US GDP (in 1990 this figure was 23%)."

Much has been written about the main political results of privatization and large-scale theft of state property. This also explains the fact that the State Duma began in March-April 1996 to check the state of privatization in the country. Data on this matter cited in the Moskovsky Komsomolets newspaper indicate: The Accounts Chamber of the Russian Federation brought to the attention of journalists its claims regarding the privatization carried out and ongoing in the country.

The leitmotif of the accusation was the failed privatization. The state did not receive any income from it.

The main charges, of course, went to the Federal Property Management. This department, instead of preventing enterprises from going bankrupt, sold off shares of debtor enterprises for next to nothing and did not think about any recovery.

The once rich country was left with nothing...

The demographic processes in Russia are very serious. They are characterized primarily by a sharp decline in the birth rate, an increase in mortality and a reduction in life expectancy, increasing migration of the population, and the emergence of a large number of refugees and migrants.

Positive natural growth remained in six autonomous okrugs, and in the Altai Republic and two autonomous okrugs it was close to zero. In general, the population of all territories with positive natural population growth is only 5.39% of the country’s total population - that’s less than 8 million people.

At least a brief description of the modern elite that has emerged in Russia deserves attention. Large-scale studies conducted by the All-Russian Center for the Study of Public Opinion showed that about 80% of the ruling elite today is occupied by the former nomenklatura. The new elite is interested in stabilizing the political situation, however, not having a social basis sufficient to form basic political parties, it is forced to structure its organization and ensure the protection of interests through the apparatus, turning it into the only, self-sufficient, undivided dominant force.

In addition to stabilizing the political situation, the ruling elite solves another problem related to the creation of real conditions for the formation of a middle class while simultaneously strengthening the positions of those who belong to the group of strategic owners. To solve other problems, primarily social ones, the new political elite does not have enough time or funds.

Meanwhile, the problems of power in terms of its preservation have worsened. One of its main characteristics is the well-known in the past discrepancy between word and deed, political slogan and practical action. (Zhukov V. Russia - state - prospects - contradictions of development. M., 1995. S. 5-20, 60, 80).

Political history of Russia in the mid and second half of the 90s. is also characterized by no less complex events and factors. Without touching on issues related to the war in Chechnya and its consequences, as well as the emerging serious integration processes within the CIS (this will be discussed below), we will dwell on a number of points that characterize the socio-political situation in these years in Russia itself. For comparison, we present the following data. The former USSR was home to more than 100 nations and nationalities, different in language, culture, lifestyle, and common historical destinies. It represented more than 130 languages ​​of indigenous peoples, including approximately 70 literary languages, the bulk of whose speakers have their own statehood outside the USSR. The languages ​​of the indigenous peoples of the USSR were widespread in 15 union, 20 autonomous republics, 8 autonomous regions and 10 autonomous okrugs (National Doctrine of Russia (problems and priorities). M., 1994. P. 32). As is known, according to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, which came into force on December 25, 1993, the Russian state includes 89 subjects of the Federation: 21 republics, 6 territories, 49 regions, 1 autonomous region, 10 autonomous districts and two cities of federal significance (Constitution of the Russian Federation M., 1993). However, the Federal Treaty legitimized the unequal position of the subjects of the Federation. The republics received the status of sovereign states, have their own constitutions, attributes: anthems, coat of arms, flag. And most importantly, they manage their fiscal policy. It would seem that these factors should have significantly stabilized, strengthened, and strengthened a single multinational state. However, due to a number of problems, mainly of a subjective nature, in these years we were faced with opposing factors characterized by separatist tendencies in the country. The most powerful source of separatism in Russia is still the national factor. There are many reasons that gave rise to this “spike”. Let's focus only on the most important ones.

Many events and tragic conflicts in the post-Soviet republics undoubtedly indicate disintegration processes, destructive trends that threaten explosions of colossal force. Ethnopolitical conflicts, which found expression in large and small wars on ethnic and territorial grounds and led to numerous casualties in Azerbaijan, Armenia, Tajikistan, Moldova, Georgia, Chechnya, North Ossetia, and Ingushetia, were and continue to be a particular danger to this day. The change in geopolitical situation has led to the fact that Russia is faced with the emergence of new unstable states on its borders. A heavy burden fell on Russia to provide economic patronage to the newly independent states. Subsidizing for these republics in 1992 alone amounted to 17 billion dollars (World Economy and International Relations. 1995. No. 4, pp. 47–49). As of July 1, 1994, the total debt of neighboring countries (former union republics) of Russia amounted to 3,421 billion rubles. At the same time, the debt of Russia itself, as the legal successor of the USSR, has recently increased sharply. It is enough to note that Russia’s external debt in 1995 amounted to 94.2 billion dollars, or 25.4% of the gross national product (Moskovskaya Pravda. 1996. March 14).

Looking ahead a little, we note that the peculiarities of the existence of new independent states are the lack of historical traditions of independent development within the framework of national-territorial entities in most of them; the underdevelopment of the political system, institutions of power, political parties, the absence of some other attributes of state power, such as the army. In fact, the state structure, borders, and internal territorial divisions were inherited from the republics of the USSR.

The specificity of the current situation also lies in the fact that in power in most republics there are former party leaders, representatives of the national elite. Naturally, the political situation in Russia is somewhat different, although here we are faced with much of what is typical today for the former republics of the USSR. The political situation in the country is largely aggravated by the difficult socio-economic situation and the noticeably worsening financial situation of the majority of the population compared to previous years.

Thus, since January 1992, price increases have been 3–4 times faster than wage increases. On average, consumer food prices have since increased by more than 12 thousand times. And further: in terms of total gross domestic product, Russia has dropped from second place in the world to tenth in five years, and in terms of gross domestic product per capita - to 75th. And this despite the fact that Russia’s resource potential is 2–2.5 times greater than the resource potential of the United States, and 6 times the potential of Germany.

By the end of 1993, in terms of the rate of decline in gross domestic product, Russia was ahead of America during the Great Depression. At the beginning of 1994, the decline in production compared to 1990 exceeded all indicators of its decline during the Great Patriotic War. The decline in production in the country has not yet been stopped. Constantly increasing, the number of fully and partially unemployed at the beginning of 1996 reached 13 million people... In January 1994, the minimum pension exceeded the subsistence level by 1%. At the beginning of last year it was already... 68% of this very minimum, and in January 1996 it dropped to 53% of it. Today, even the average pension barely reaches the subsistence level, which is meagerly calculated by current officials for pensioners... In 1995, the natural decline of the Russian population amounted to 785.4 thousand people and, compared to 1992, increased by 3.6 times. Over the past five years, the number of disabled people has increased by 70%. The number of orphans in the Russian Federation has increased by 115 thousand over the past two years. Since 1990, the number of scientific workers in our country has decreased by almost 1 million. In terms of salary, scientists now occupy the penultimate place in Russia, since funding during this time has decreased tens (!) times (Pravda. 1996. April 6).

Despite the exceptional complexity in the socio-economic and political life of the country in the mid-90s, the greatest danger and tragedy in these years were associated with the futile and senseless war in Chechnya. Much can be understood, something can be come to terms with when it comes to the socio-economic situation in the state, but when tens of thousands of innocent people die, dozens of cities and villages are destroyed, huge, irreparable damage is caused to the country’s economy, with this A sane person can hardly agree. This explains the nationwide protest against the war, which claimed thousands of human lives.

The problem of Chechnya, complex and multifaceted, can be resolved through mutual compromises, taking into account the interests of the Chechen people and all peoples of Russia. This will take a long time.

These are just the main aspects of the political and socio-economic development of Russia under the conditions of the new state system.

The most important political event in Russia in the mid-90s. The elections to the State Duma began in December 1995. Voter activity was quite high, over 60% of voters took part in the elections. In general, the election results brought victory to the people's patriotic bloc and indicated a decrease in the political significance of the democratic forces.

After the elections in Russia, a qualitatively new political situation practically emerged in which the State Duma could have exerted serious pressure on the policies of the President and the Government of Russia, but this did not happen. The path to “national accord” did not lead to tangible results. The bloody war in Chechnya continued. In the country, the number of refugees was 6 million, street children - 1 million, orphans - 2 million. Over 36 million people continued to remain half-starved. The life support foundation of Russian society, education, science and culture, have not received any significant support. Crime and drunkenness increased.

Almost immediately after the elections to the State Duma, the election campaign for the re-election of the President of Russia begins to unfold. Basically, the campaign took place without significant political or other excesses. All political parties and movements of the country, candidates for the post of President, their headquarters and proxies took an active part in the preparation of the elections, observing civilized forms and methods of pre-election political struggle. The elections took place in two rounds. The first round, which did not determine the candidacy of the President of the country, took place on June 16, the second - on July 3, 1996.

Two candidates ran in the second round: former President B. N. Yeltsin and the head of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation G. A. Zyuganov. Both presidential candidates claimed that they had programs to bring Russia out of the crisis; advocated a peaceful solution to the accumulated problems in the field of domestic and foreign policy of the country.

The number of voters for Yeltsin and Zyuganov in the first round was almost the same. In the second round, B. N. Yeltsin won. Referring to the Federal Law “On the Election of the President of the Russian Federation,” the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation decided to recognize the presidential elections on July 3, 1996 as valid and consider B. N. Yeltsin elected to the post of President of the Russian Federation for a second term.

The assessment of the election results both in Russia itself and abroad was not unambiguous.

Time will answer all the questions raised by the results of the presidential elections in Russia.

§ 4. Russia and integration processes in the CIS

The first half of 1996 will occupy a special place in the history of Russia. This is explained by integration processes within the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).

First of all, we note that various political parties and socio-political trends in the Russian Federation have completely different assessments of the Belovezhskaya Agreements concluded by the leaders of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. In this regard, on March 15, 1996, the Russian State Duma voted to denounce the Belovezhskaya Accords. At the same time, the Duma adopted a resolution on the legal validity for Russia of the results of the 1991 referendum (of 75.4% of the country's voters who participated in the referendum, 71.3% voted to preserve the USSR).

President B.N. Yeltsin sharply opposed the decision of the Duma, who addressed a special message to the Federation Council on March 17, recognizing the decision of the Duma as unlawful. In essence, a serious dispute broke out between the executive and legislative branches. Today it is still difficult to judge the consequences of the decision taken by the Duma. Obviously, time will answer all the questions raised in this regard.

Meanwhile, integration processes within the CIS began to gain momentum. On March 29, 1996, in Moscow, documents were signed between the presidents of Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus and Kyrgyzstan aimed at further strengthening integration in the economic and humanitarian fields. The presidents unanimously assessed this event as “epoch-making,” the consequences of which will have an exclusively positive impact on the lives of peoples connected by a “historically established common destinies.” These documents note:

1. By the will of fate, these peoples at the end of 1991 found themselves separated by state borders and gained national independence and sovereignty. But, as noted in the agreement, their will for further rapprochement is irresistible, and the fact of the existence of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the parties is undeniable.

2. The contract was concluded for 5 years with automatic extension “if someone does not want to leave it after the expiration of the term.” In this case, he will have to warn others no later than six months in advance. The agreement is open for other CIS members to join.

Judging by the goals, the agreement gave rise to the creation of a single economic space, a common market for goods, services, capital and labor, and the interaction of various forms of ownership.

For example, Article 3 states that the competence of the joint bodies of the Union (Community) includes the determination of common policy and direct management in the following areas: economics, monetary and financial regulation, energy, transport, communications, ensuring equal guarantees, rights and freedoms citizens, rights of national minorities, foreign policy, ecology, standards, security and border protection. To achieve these goals, the parties establish a Supreme Council, an International Committee and a Parliamentary Congress.

Separate intergovernmental agreements have been signed on specific areas. There are more than 50 of them. In particular, an agreement on the mutual simplification of the procedure for obtaining citizenship by migrants, on free entry and exit, on the recognition of university diplomas as having equal value, on a unified education system and social protection of the population.

Importance was attached to the customs union. This did not mean that customs posts would disappear on the borders between countries and goods would flow freely in all directions. They talked about a unified customs policy, unified rules for the delivery and inspection of goods, their accounting, mutual settlements and joint measures to combat smuggling. In the military field, the parties agreed to ensure common security, to have common principles for the construction, planning and use of armed forces, their participation in peacekeeping operations, as well as the use of elements of military infrastructure in accordance with national legislation.

A serious step towards the integration of the CIS was the signing in Moscow by the presidents of Russia and Belarus on April 2, 1996 of an agreement on deepening integration between Belarus and Russia. Immediately, the State Duma of Russia adopted a Statement in support of this treaty. Moreover, Duma deputies called on the heads of state of the CIS to support the process of Russian-Belarusian rapprochement and join it “in any acceptable forms.”

Positive trends in integration processes in the CIS countries contributed to the strengthening of civilized relations and aimed at joint peaceful coexistence throughout the post-Soviet space. This was very important due to the fact that the collapse of the USSR and the formation of the CIS determined both positive and negative aspects of the relationship between the new sovereign states.

In our opinion, the well-known strengthening of “reintegration” sentiments among certain circles of the CIS should be considered not so much as a strengthening of this organization as such, but as an identification of real and potential bilateral and multilateral ties between its subjects, as a reaction to the extremes that accompanied the painful collapse of the USSR in early 90s The tendency to at least symbolically overcome alienation is due to a number of reasons. Among them: fatigue and sobering up from nationalist ideology, disappointment of the ruling elites of the former Soviet republics with the scale of Western European and American economic assistance, limited opportunities for independent economic development. Of no small importance is the serious orientation toward Russia of certain circles in the former Soviet republics.

As for the subjective perception of Russia's place in the post-Soviet space, the consciousness of Russian society is largely contradictory, and the attitude towards integration is a rather complex set of attitudes and sentiments. Judging by public opinion polls, there was still a high level of nostalgia for the former "big" country, the collapse of the USSR itself was perceived by a significant, if not the majority, part of the population as an evil and even a national tragedy. In 1996, the shock of the collapse was somewhat softened by the understanding that the new abroad was still not the same as traditional abroad Despite the political sovereignty of the former Soviet republics, the introduction of their own currencies, customs, etc., the borders within the CIS still remained largely open, and the ties between the people living in them did not weaken, or, in any case, , were weakened not as a result of political collapse as such. In modern conditions, a significant part of the population already stands not for the Union in its previous or changed borders, but for the reintegration of the former Soviet republics.

The problem of unity of the peoples of the CIS continues to be one of the most striking and attractive today. Therefore, the perhaps insufficiently realistic steps taken in the conditions of the new social and state system of Russia towards deeper integration in the CIS countries met with understanding and approval of the masses. In support of the objective need to implement these trends, many interesting judgments have now been published. In this regard, the judgment published in the newspaper “Moskovskaya Pravda” on May 15, 1996 deserves attention: “The tragedy of the new geopolitical situation that arose as a result of the lightning-fast collapse of the USSR lies in the fact that the historically established real community of people - the Soviet people - turned out to be artificially divided according to nationality and territorial characteristics. Not only Russians, but also all other peoples of the former Union were divided. Nevertheless, many people feel themselves to be a single people, have close family ties throughout the former Union and retain powerful integration stereotypes. After all, every second family in Russia has relatives in CIS. All peoples suffer from disintegration, but more than others - the Russian-speaking population, forced in thousands to flee from the former republics. Most of the migrants are highly qualified specialists who worked not only in industry, but also in science, medicine, education. This negatively affects the production and technical base of new states, sometimes leads to the shutdown of workshops and high-tech areas, reduces labor productivity, quality and competitiveness of products."

For integration to be successful, isolationist language structures in the republics and the short-sightedness of Russian policy towards the Russian language must be broken. As much as its role was previously popularized and raised, it was diminished, especially in the first years of sovereignization. Only in Belarus and Kyrgyzstan did the Russian language receive state status. In this regard, one of the real steps to deepen integration would be to give the Russian language official status for interstate structures and equal status with the native language in all post-Soviet republics, where national languages ​​are state languages ​​de jure, and Russian de facto. He was and remains a unifying factor. The language of interethnic communication has not exhausted itself.

The Russian language today is needed by the peoples inhabiting Russia no less than by the Russians themselves. Through the Russian language they entered the world of science and technology, literature and culture. Political leaders and scientific and technical intelligentsia were educated in Russian. They joined the European way of life and thought, albeit somewhat modified by national specifics. Language is psychology. For centuries, the Russian language has been introduced into the consciousness and life of all peoples of the post-Soviet space.

By the agreement on deepening integration in the economic and humanitarian fields, Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan pledged to create “conditions for preserving and strengthening a common cultural space on the basis of historically established ties and business contacts between creative unions and associations, cultural figures, literature and art, preserving ethnic and linguistic identity of peoples." The same agreement also provides for the provision of equal rights for citizens of these states when receiving education and the introduction of uniform educational standards.

The issue of single citizenship for all citizens of the CIS while maintaining the newly acquired citizenship of a sovereign state also deserves attention. So far, only Turkmenistan and Tajikistan have concluded agreements with Russia on dual citizenship. Although the effectiveness of these acts is felt extremely weakly and contradictory.

Hope-inspiring agreements were reached between Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan on freedom of choice and a simplified procedure for obtaining citizenship, free entry and exit, the introduction of uniform standards of social protection, equalization of pension conditions, levels of benefits and benefits for war and labor veterans, disabled people and low-income families.

In order to provide real assistance to our compatriots, on May 17, 1996, the Government of the Russian Federation adopted a resolution “On the program of measures to support compatriots abroad,” which defines both general and specific tasks for the implementation of this extremely necessary program.

In modern conditions, the rapid integration onslaught has moved into the practical plane, and a multi-tiered structure of interaction between new states has already clearly emerged:

I - Russia, Belarus - the deepest form of the Community with common national, including political, governance structures;

II - Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan - in-depth, primarily economic integration, based on the Customs and Payments Unions;

III - member countries of the CIS, formed after the collapse of the USSR - an interstate association of 12 former republics;

IV - CIS and Baltic states - territory of the former Soviet Union.

Each of these systems is declared open for free exit, admission of new members and contacts with other interstate and global transnational entities.

Possible attempts to forcefully, hastily involve or economically coerce other countries - members of the CIS or the former CMEA - can not only discredit the very idea of ​​integration, but also give the opposite result. The emerging rapprochement is much less rapid and intense than the collapse that preceded it. But it is absolutely obvious that the CIS is beginning to transform into a qualitatively new geopolitical, socio-economic and national-cultural infrastructure, which has no analogues in world history. The scale and speed of integration processes will largely be determined by which political forces will be in power and which trends will prevail in Russian politics. But mutual attraction and the will of peoples to unite cannot be stopped.

However, it should be noted that this objective integration process is not painless, encountering serious resistance along the way from certain influential forces both in the CIS countries and in foreign countries. The fact is that the fate of the huge massif, which until recently was the Soviet Union, is still one of the central world problems. The fact that this issue dominates other problems in the post-Soviet space itself is understandable. But this issue is far from indifferent to other European and Asian countries. Naturally, in these countries the attitude towards integration processes in the CIS is also ambiguous.

It is known that the collapse of the USSR made not only millions of Russians “foreigners at home”. Almost all the titular nations of the former union republics of the USSR suffered. In addition to 25 million Russians and 5 million Russian-speaking people, about 30 million people of other nationalities from the former USSR found themselves in a similar situation. Taking into account the need to support Russians and Russian-speaking people who find themselves outside of Russia today, the Institute of New Abroad was created in Moscow. They can count on support from Russia in the near future. Created with the support of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Nationalities, the Federal Border and Migration Services of Russia, as well as a number of public and commercial organizations, the Institute of New Abroad will develop models, levels and mechanisms of political, economic and cultural integration throughout the post-Soviet space. The Institute intends to collect information about the situation of Russians and Russian-speaking people in the new abroad, organize support for the Russian language and culture, predict and prevent military-political conflicts in the CIS countries with the participation of the Russian-speaking diaspora, determine possible areas of investment and promote the interests of Russian national capital in the countries of the new abroad, as well as making the ideas of integration popular in Russian and international public opinion (Izvestia. 1996. April 24).

After the liquidation of the Soviet Union (December 1991), Russia apparently assumed that the CIS states, left to their own devices, would not be viable, and therefore sooner or later they would gather around Russia again. In order to support such a reintegration process, Moscow concluded bilateral treaties with them, which, when complemented by multilateral agreements, were supposed to lead to the harmonization of the economy, foreign policy, security policy, as well as military strategy (for example, a common air defense system). Moscow called its partners in the CIS “near abroad,” thereby emphasizing the special nature of these relations, read - claims to special rights and interests of Russia in this space. When he took office as Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation in January 1996, E. Primakov put relations with the CIS countries first on the scale of Russia's foreign policy priorities. This policy - even from the point of view of the Russian leadership - has largely failed. Today, neither the concept nor the strategy for future relations with the CIS has been defined. In this situation, the opinion is becoming increasingly widespread that Moscow’s actual claims to a leading role in the CIS and the desire to realize them through political, economic and military pressure are counterproductive. They act like a time bomb and rather push the CIS states to intensify the search for partners outside the Commonwealth.

Since 1997, disintegration processes in the CIS have accelerated sharply. Not without reason, at the Moscow meeting of the heads of state of the CIS in March 1997, Boris Yeltsin asked the question whether the members of the Commonwealth were still interested in its continued existence? In turn, some of the presidents at the Chisinau meeting in October 1997 sharply criticized Russia. The point, in essence, was that Moscow was unable to make this forum useful for all its participants as an integration community of equal states. The fact that the next meeting of the leaders of its member countries, at which it was supposed to discuss the fundamental reform of the CIS, its institutions and mechanisms, was repeatedly postponed, starting in January 1998, is symptomatic of the tendencies of erosion of the Commonwealth.

What are the main reasons for the failure of the CIS as it has existed so far?

The crisis of the CIS is genetically determined: the Commonwealth was created in 1991 as a replacement for the liquidated USSR, but it was not based on a fundamentally new concept. Under these conditions, all integration projects - themselves highly heterogeneous - were wasted (for example, B. Yeltsin’s idea of ​​a community “at different speeds”, N. Nazarbayev’s idea of ​​a “Eurasian Union”). Russia, with its GNP comparable to that of France or Brazil and its enormous growth prospects, does not, however, have the material resources to carry out a new integration and does not have a sufficiently attractive political and cultural influence on its partners.

The CIS lacks a single “carrying” idea; it is neither a community of values ​​nor a community of interests. As their own statehood strengthens, the interests and policies of member states inevitably diverge further and further, in the field of foreign and security policy as well as in foreign economic and cultural relations. In addition, there is no external or internal, global or regional threat that would be perceived as a common danger by all CIS member states.

On the contrary, their perceptions of the threat often do not coincide, or even contradict each other. The most striking example of this is the divergence in attitudes towards NATO: while Russia and Belarus view the Alliance as a potential threat to themselves, many other Commonwealth countries see it as a reliable security partner and seek close cooperation with it.

Of course, the majority of CIS members give him credit for the fact that the collapse of the Soviet Union occurred in a civilized manner and not according to the Yugoslav scenario. At the same time, trust in the CIS and connections within it are increasingly weakening, since it is unable to achieve serious success in resolving smoldering, and at times, conflicts that become acute (Transnistria, Abkhazia, Nagorno-Karabakh).

And finally, it was not possible to implement the idea of ​​​​gradual economic integration according to the model of the European Economic Community (European Community) of the European Union. The strong differences in the nature and pace of transformation processes in the CIS countries make it virtually impossible for them to interact on the basis of common economic rules. The objective disintegration of the Soviet planned economy cannot be reversed by creating more and more new organizations and institutions (interstate bank, currency committee, customs union, etc.), nor can it be transferred directly to the stage of new integration, skipping over the disintegration phase. In a market economy, fresh impulses for new integration come from the natural - and not imposed by order - interests of economic entities.

True, in these conditions, the CIS still represents a useful forum for coordinating practical tasks (for example, in the field of transport infrastructures) and for exchanging views on conflict zones in the region (for example, in Tajikistan). But as an institution of regional integration in the post-Soviet space or as a supraregional political, economic or military factor, the CIS is still untenable. According to official data, only every tenth of the eight hundred agreements concluded within the CIS is in force. Many of them were signed by only a part of the member states. As a result of such cooperation “by choice,” the desire for greater integration is negated. The President of Uzbekistan, with a noticeable amount of cynicism, explained the fact that decisions are generally made in the CIS: “... everyone knows that they will never be implemented” (World Economy and International Relations. 1998. No. 12. pp. 41–42).

Despite the existing contradictions within the CIS on a number of issues, which, in our opinion, are largely subjective in nature, recently there has been a clearly visible positive trend towards deepening relations between the main allies in the post-Soviet space. This is evidenced by the constant meetings of the heads of state of the CIS countries in 2000 and in the first half of 2001. More than 10 years have passed since the formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States, and today few doubt the usefulness of this union, the need not only to jointly solve socio-economic and political issues, but also to effectively coordinate their actions in solving collective security problems. This is convincingly evidenced by the periodically conducted joint military exercises of the CIS countries, which contribute to strengthening the defense capability of the Commonwealth.

Thus, integration processes within the CIS are becoming decisive in the modern conditions of the political, socio-economic and cultural life of Russia and the new independent and sovereign states created on the basis of the former Soviet Union. The identity factor, as we know, grows from recognition of the past, present and future. In modern conditions 4 this is realized by the majority of the population of the union republics of the former USSR. How much strength the integration process will gain in the future will largely depend on Russia.

Time will tell, and history will judge.

Each new period in a child’s life brings new impressions and emotions, both for the baby and for his parents. At the same time, each age has its own difficulties and characteristics. We are talking about the so-called “age-related crises,” which we will tell you about today.

If we ask any parent: “What child's age do you think is the best?”, then we will probably hear in response: “Each period of a baby’s life is good in its own way.” In infancy - the opportunity to observe how a personality is formed from a helpless creature. In preschool age - the need to help the child acquire new knowledge and skills. In adolescence, it is an opportunity to see how the first features of an adult, self-confident boy or girl appear in a once small person.

Yes, every new period in a child’s life brings new impressions and emotions, both for the baby and for his parents. At the same time, each age has its own difficulties and characteristics. We are talking about the so-called “age-related crises,” which we will tell you about today.

What is an "age crisis"

Age crisis- these are turning points in the development of a child, delimiting different periods of his life. The essence of age-related crises is that a person’s system of communication with the surrounding reality and his relationship to it changes. In other words, the child’s leading activity changes, as a result of which he exhibits sharp personality changes and psychological shifts. Let us note that the crisis can be considered both a good and a bad period in development.

The negative aspects of the age crisis include factors such as:

• during crises, the child changes greatly - negativism appears (for example, when parents ask the child to do something, and he shows a negative reaction and refuses to comply with the requirements).
• bad behavior appears (the manifestation of despotism is not excluded) - capriciousness and obstinacy are observed, and the number of conflicts with others increases.

If we talk about the positive aspects of the age crisis, then we cannot fail to mention that it is during such periods that the child learns to communicate in a new way, he develops new formations and his leading activity changes.

What are children's "crises"?

Newborn crisis- this is the very first turning point in the life of a child, which separates the extrauterine psychological development of the baby from his intrauterine life. There are two reasons for the emergence of such a crisis: physiological (the child is separated from the mother and finds himself in other conditions) and psychological (the psyche of a newly born baby is unconditioned reflexes).

The second crisis period occurs in infancy and is called the “one-year crisis.” Outwardly, it manifests itself in the form of disobedience, screaming and hysterics. Experts believe that the cause of the one-year crisis is the social situation of the destruction of the complete unity of a newborn with an adult. It is during this period that the baby realizes that he is a child and his parents are adults.

During early childhood, a new turning point begins - crisis of three years. At this time, the baby begins to understand that he is not just a child, but a person who has his place in society. And by sacramentally saying “I myself,” the baby strives to secure his place in the world. At one time, the famous Soviet psychologist Vygotsky described the main characteristics of this period as follows:

• stubbornness – the inability (unwillingness) to give up one’s desire (decision);
• negativism - the desire to do the exact opposite of what was said;
• devaluation - attempts to break favorite toys, call mom or dad names, etc.;
• obstinacy - denial of the norms of upbringing or lifestyle in the family;
• rebellion or protest – provoking conflict situations at the slightest manifestation of doubts about the child’s independence;
• despotism is the desire to impose one’s desires on adults so that they do whatever the child wants.

The next crisis overtakes the child in preschool age, when play as a leading activity has exhausted itself, and has been replaced by an understanding of how and what works. Experts call this period " identity crisis"or the "seven year crisis". At this age, the child actively develops imagination, voluntary memory and behavior, and also forms elements of educational activity. That is, the future schoolchild realizes that the time has come to grow up, adapt to society and listen to opinions and desires Naturally, a change in the life paradigm causes psychological discomfort and involuntary protest in the child, which manifests itself in:

• antics;
• pretense;
• whims;
• agility;
• displays of deliberately adult behavior.

The next crisis period (adolescence, puberty crisis) is the most significant turning point in a child’s life, since it is associated not only with psychological, but also physiological changes. Well, since it is impossible to talk about it in a nutshell, in the very near future we will devote a separate article to it.

How to deal with age-related crises

In order for a child to overcome the turning points in his life described above with minimal psychological losses, it is very important for parents not only to understand the characteristics of each age period, but also to show maximum patience and tact.

Unfortunately, you will not be able to experience these difficult moments of growing up for your child. You can only help your baby expand his capabilities, master new areas of activity for him and master new means to meet his needs.

And to do this, you just need to talk to your child, listen to him carefully, try to understand and respect the children’s decisions, and, of course, surround the little man with immeasurable love and care.

This is, firstly, the traditional European system:

The moon determines the 1st – 3rd years of life,
Mercury 4 – 9
Venus 10 – 17
Sun 18 – 36
Mars 37 – 52
Jupiter 53 – 63
Saturn 64 onwards.

Secondly, planetary periods or cycles deserve special attention. The most important of them are cycles of Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus.

Uranus takes 84 years to complete a revolution around the Sun (or around the Earth, if you prefer) and is in each sign for seven years. As he progresses, he enters into aspects “with himself,” that is, with his position in the natal chart, and determines periods of life that are multiples of seven years. Dane Rudhyar says: “at 7, 35 and 63 years the conscious ego awakens to a new life,” counting these yearstransitional ages or periods of new birth.

21 years old. First quadrature. It is not for nothing that this age was considered the age of majority. Indians also consider the 22nd year of life to be very important, a “turning point,” but they subordinate it to the Sun (they do not use high planets). A person makes, perhaps, the first important decision in his life (marriage, profession, place of residence).

It determines the next seven or eight years, after which it can be corrected if it turns out to be erroneous. Or he may have health problems that will make themselves felt much later (he was exposed to radiation, etc.). During this period, a person especially needs the help of an astrologer.

24th year life. In European astrology - the completion of the next cycle of Jupiter, in Indian astrology - the year of the Moon. This moment is not as important as the one described above, but it kind of determines what to be and what to go. If a person was married at the age of 21, a person may think about the advisability of continuing a relationship with this partner; if a particular profession has been chosen, at this time the foundations of a second, additional or next profession that the person will turn to later can be laid.

29.5 years. At the age of 28, the trine of Uranus begins, for Indians it is the year of Mars. At 29-30 – completion of the Saturn cycle. This is a period of personality change: the youthful personality (which, by the way, still stores many memories of the previous incarnation) seems to fall like leaves from a tree, and the adult personality appears. This is also a period of decision-making, but a person is already quite capable of making them on his own. In terms of illnesses, this is rather a positive period: health is stabilizing.

32nd year of life, according to the Indian system, is subordinate to Mercury. This is the final definition of the profession, at least for the next seven or eight years.

In general, this is a major period of “a person finding his place in life,” ending at the age of 35 (Uranus quincunx). The quincunx also denotes personality problems for which a person needs a partner. It is not surprising that by the age of 35 a person’s “settle down”
partnerships (marriage, family), he occupies a strong position at work. Moreover, the 36th year of life means the completion of the next cycle of Jupiter, and for Indians it is subordinate to Saturn (new birth, according to D. Rudyar).

The next “step” of Uranus is 42 years(quincunx). Year of Rahu for Indians (42nd). Another crisis (family, work, health). The “seven year of nodes” begins, ending with the year of Ketu (48th), which also corresponds to the cycle of Jupiter. This is a period of new changes, after which stabilization begins until the moment of retirement.

56 years old– another trine of Uranus. During this period, a person reaches the pinnacle of his “adult” endeavors. “After 56 years he will mature into a seed for the future—his race and his own self,” writes Dane Rudhyar. At 60 years of age, the completion of the Saturn cycle and the next revolution of Jupiter occur, confirming this.

63 years old: square Uranus. This age is like 21 years old, becausemeans a crisis, a reassessment of values ​​- or, conversely, an affirmation of one’s principles, which will now remain unchanged until the age of 84, if, of course, the person lives to that age.

84 years old: another birth. Completion of the Uranus cycle. Read more from Dane Rudhyar. In general, this means a new (and, perhaps, final) revision of all life positions, often a rejection of the worldly, vain, and an appeal to higher values.

12 stages of human life

Zodiac signs are the determining factor for drawing up horoscopes and significantly influence a person’s destiny. Many people, trying to find out their future or understand the present, turn to various astrologers and clairvoyants. And they don’t even realize that they can independently predict with sufficient accuracy the events that await them.

Zodiac translated from ancient Greek means “circle of life.” The fact is that throughout a person’s life, his or her development goes through 12 stages corresponding to the signs of the zodiac. Therefore, the 12 zodiac signs or 12 stages of life are especially relevant for us.

In astrology there is such a thing as Pars vita, or “point of life”. According to the Zodiac, she moves at a speed of 4.3 degrees per year, starting her journey in Aries and ending in Pisces. Pars vita stays in each sign for exactly 7 years. Knowing which zodiac sign the point of life is in, we can determine what problems we will face at a particular stage of life. If you multiply 7 years by 12, you get 84 years. And this is nothing more than the time during which Uranus passes through all the signs of the zodiac.

So, our 84-year life is divided into 12 seven-year cycles, during which we must complete a certain program in order to enable all the abilities inherent in us from birth to unfold. When all 12 signs of the zodiac are passed, Pars vita returns to its original position - the first degree of Aries and the person, as it were, begins his life anew.
We can always determine exactly what problems we will encounter at a given age. Each of us must complete our own program at each specific age and, ultimately, throughout our lives. Look at how your life program is being implemented and draw your own conclusions.

From 0 to 7 years.

The point of life at this age moves at the fastest sign - Aries. Seething in kids energy, they are restless and inquisitive, they immediately want to know everything and about everything, and there is no force that could stop them. And there is no need to restrain a child at this age; on the contrary, we need to give him more freedom, because it is very important for him to assert himself and show his abilities. The task of parents is to instill in the child a feeling of love and compassion for others, and to prevent the development of selfishness and cruelty. After all, the motto of this age and Aries is: “I want!” Don’t let your child hurt animals and other kids, teach them to take care of nature, and cultivate willpower. If you fail to instill these qualities in your child before the age of seven, you will never instill them!

From 7 to 14 years
The life point moves to the curly Taurus. Therefore, gentlemen, parents, do not indulge all the material desires and whims of your child. At this stage of life, he must be taught to control his emotions, especially anger and aggression. It is necessary to develop and train your memory. Try to “culturally,” but firmly, form a teenager’s social circle, since at this age the negative energy of the crowd accumulates in him, which can later manifest itself in cruelty and intransigence towards others. But don’t isolate your child from their peers. The place where they meet and the atmosphere are of great importance.

It is also important to lay the foundations for systematic learning. Try to ensure that your child learns more of the various material being studied; the more, the better. At this age, it is quite easy to instill in a child a love of art and aesthetics. It's the right time to study in music and art schools. And at the age of 13–14, you need to instill and form the correct attitude towards your ancestors and roots. You can also speculate on philosophical topics. It is time!

From 15 years to 21 years
The point moves along sign of Gemini. It's time to actively develop intelligence and independent thinking. At the age of 15–16, a person enters society, which has its own laws and rules that one must learn to follow in order for society to accept him. It is necessary to get rid of lack of composure, irresponsibility, craving for gossip and speculation. It's time for parents to start sex education for their children, otherwise they will find out everything themselves (actually, I think these recommendations about sex education are outdated, start it earlier).

At this age, it is useful to travel a lot, learn about the cultures of other countries, and absorb a variety of information.

From 21 to 28 years old
Life point is in Cancer. This is a very important stage in the life of every person. The main task is to improve the inner world, forming one’s own value system based on the experience of older generations. By engaging in introspection and spiritual improvement, a person must try to get rid of many negative qualities: suspiciousness, isolation from others, greed.

The most difficult thing at this age is to overcome the milestone of 25–26 years, when a person is overcome by the desire to give up everything and start living again. During this period, it is very important to make the right choice, since many have already started a family. Often reckless actions ruin the life of not only him, but also those close to him.

In order not to make mistakes, you need to establish strong spiritual ties with parents and relatives, just with the older generation. In a difficult situation, they are able to really help both in word and deed. 25–26 years is the most favorable time for the birth of children, since they adopt the best qualities of their personality from their parents.

From 28 to 35 years old
The point of life is in Leo. A tendency toward adventurism, alcoholism, and drug addiction begins to appear; there is an influx of energy, which not everyone can use correctly; many begin to waste it, indulging in pleasures and entertainment, often empty and worthless. The most The best way to combat temptations is to study philosophy, religion, and read books that raise morality and purity of the soul. It is very important to choose the right philosophical concept, not to go into sectarianism, not to accumulate negative energy that can destroy a person.

The turning point is up to 32 years old. From the age of 28, family problems fade into the background, and one’s own ego becomes the main thing. A person tries to prove himself in a team, to be noticed and appreciated. At the age of 29, he takes stock of the years he has lived for the first time. For women, the period is very important - 32 years. Time to change feelings, reconsider your personal relationships. At this age, divorces often occur and new love affairs begin. We must try to analyze the past, weigh all the pros and cons, and not act too quickly. New feelings may not last long, sometimes only a year.

From 35 to 42 years old
The point of life is in Virgo. The time comes when a person must give up most of the energy accumulated in the previous period. Clarity and methodical approach to solving a variety of problems are required. A favorable time for professional growth and arranged marriages. The age from 37 to 38 years is a karmic check, a check of society. This is the first exam on how you comply with the principles of the Zodiac and whether you are fulfilling your life program. And if not, then you will be punished in the form of various life problems: dismissal from work, serious illness, betrayal of friends.

During this period, you must pay close attention to your health. It’s worth paying special attention to your diet and trying not to pollute your body. At the age of Virgo, unpleasant traits may appear in your character: grumpiness, pickiness, stinginess, disregard for the feelings and needs of others. But the main thing is to get ready for the most important cycle in your life - 42 years - the half-cycle of Uranus, when the point of life crosses the life “equator”. At this age, many people try to change their lives, as it seems to them, for the better: they change their family, place of work, place of residence, hobbies.

From 42 to 49 years old
The point of life moves along Libra sign. During this period, a person tries to devote himself to a creatively chosen task at the age of 42. This age is also called “Indian summer”, when harmony and maturity sets in in both personal and social life. Everything that has been accumulated over previous years has been analyzed, systematized and is awaiting implementation. The main planet of Libra is Venus. It is she who guides a person in the desire to create strong harmonious connections, to follow the laws of ethics and morality in deeds and feelings.

During this period, it is necessary to establish social connections, get a new job, show your organizational skills and overcome shortcomings. Such as, for example, egocentrism, selfishness, and a tendency to dictate. This is a good time to develop your talents if you have them.

From 49 to 55 years old
Scorpio Time. A difficult, critical period in the life of any person, especially women. We have to change long-established views, which is very difficult to do. Withdrawal is difficult and painful. On the physical plane, many often experience oncological diseases; many (especially at 52 years old) experience sexual syndrome - increased sexual dissatisfaction. At the age of Scorpio, a person has enormous self-destructive power and is sometimes ready to go all-in to achieve a goal. It is necessary to control your emotions, under no circumstances withdraw into yourself and not engage in self-examination.

Go out more often, meet with friends, study psychology, create creativity or engage in group activities. This period is favorable for discovering and improving magical and occult abilities. Women aged 52 are especially prone to this. For those who until this time led an unrighteous lifestyle, fate provides a chance to correct themselves, abandon their delusions and begin to live on completely new philosophical principles.

From 56 to 63 years old
At this age the point of life moves according to the sign of Sagittarius. A person begins to rush into philosophy or religion. Many people have a fussy craving for knowledge that they did not have time to acquire once. I would like to know several sciences and different philosophical movements at once. But, as a rule, this fails. Mercury is in captivity, and, grasping at many things, a person does not achieve results at all. Try to choose one thing and study this subject more deeply. At the age of 56, a person undergoes another test by society. All the mistakes and blunders made at the ages of 37 and 38 are revealed here.

Those who correctly approach this stage of their path occupy high positions in society. Those who do not pass the test do not achieve their goals and retire.

From 63 to 70 years old
The point of life is moving according to the sign of Capricorn. Last Chance is coming! It is at the age of 63 that a person’s last choice occurs, when he CAN change his life if he wishes. Anyone who makes the wrong choice, as a rule, leaves life or seriously breaks it. This is especially true for people who strive to create another family: in 90% of cases nothing works out. It is possible to destroy the old, but creating a new one is almost impossible.
At the age of Capricorn, it is necessary to abandon some stereotypical ideas, finally develop a vital, philosophical core and learn to give a clear assessment of every phenomenon, every event, but in no case impose your opinion and listen carefully to your opponents.

It is very important to build relationships with your loved ones correctly, since many at this age try to be despotistic towards them. Try to develop diplomacy and the ability to compromise.

From 70 to 77 years
Aquarius time. A time of contemplation of life, a philosophical view of it, the view of an outside observer. Throughout his life, a person changes his attitude towards the world around him, changes his priorities. As children we say: “I”. In his youth: “Me and the world.” In adulthood: “The world and I.” At the age of Aquarius, only “PEACE” remains. This fourth stage of perception is the most important in understanding life and one’s place in it. If such a perception of the world does not come over the years, then a person’s spiritual qualities gradually begin to fade away, he falls into insanity, which inevitably leads to the collapse of the physical body.

Aquarius time is a time of enjoying solitude or family solitude with your other half, since the life program has already been completed. But while enjoying life, show wisdom and philanthropy, then those around you will respect you for your thoughtfulness, justice and deep knowledge of the laws of life.

From 77 to 84 years old
The point of life is moving according to the sign of Pisces– the life cycle ends. For a person, everything is clear and understandable; he feels a connection with nature, unity with it. Spiritual, cosmic HARMONY is coming. The person enjoys life. Anyone who has correctly distributed vital forces must travel at this time, learn about foreign cultures, filling the gap in knowledge of everything earthly.

It is during this period that highly spiritual people connect to cosmic sources. Man merges with the Cosmos, but sometimes he needs to return to Earth. And - EVERYTHING.

Agree, there is something to think about...

1985 was truly a turning point in the history of the Soviet Union.

Despite certain achievements in economic and social development (in particular, by mid-1970 the USSR had achieved military-strategic parity in terms of weapons with the United States and the entire NATO bloc), the Soviet state found itself in a deep crisis. The main reason for it was the decline in industrial growth rates, which occurred against the backdrop of the rapid industrial development of the world's leading powers. The policy pursued by the Soviet leadership since the time of Lenin, aimed at confrontation with the countries of “world capital” and with the ultimate goal of establishing the Soviet version of socialism throughout the world, reached a dead end, since in the near future the USSR was to lose its status as a great power.

A distinctive feature of this period was the decline in the political influence of the CPSU and related political organizations, such as the Komsomol and trade unions.

The former leadership of the CPSU began to be accused of subjectivism, voluntarism, a cult of personality, departure from the “general line of the party” and other sins.

In 1989 – 1990 the apparatus is gradually losing real power. The once united CPSU splits into various factions and groupings.

In the 1990 elections to the Supreme and local Soviets of the RSFSR, supporters of the democratic movement under the slogans of “Democratic Russia” and the rapid introduction of market relations achieved serious success.

It became clear that the prospect of destruction of the existing political system was increasingly approaching.

At the end of July 1991, these fears became even more acute. At the direction of “from above,” organizational plenums were held everywhere.

In Lipetsk, the regional plenum released the first secretary of the regional committee of the CPSU V.V. Donskikh, he was replaced by V.F., who worked for a long time in our region as a newspaper editor, secretary for ideology, and then second secretary of the Stanovlyansky district party committee, later chairman of the district executive committee. Toporkov (photo).

On July 9, 1991, a plenum was held in the Stanovlyan party organization. On it is the first secretary of the district committee of the CPSU V.A. Gerasimov. resigned with the wording “in connection with the transition to another job.” Instead, they elected former secretary for ideology K.I. Malyutin, who had a difficult burden during the most difficult time for the country and the Communist Party - in August 1991... K.I. Malyutina (photo), actually led the underground district committee and she, first of all, had to deal with the employment of former district committee members.

By the beginning of 1991, the need arose to create an employment office. Natalya Ivanovna Rybina was appointed to the post of manager. The main task of the bureau is to provide employment to people.

In the middle of the same year, the tax inspectorate was created. Its main goal is to control the legislation on taxes and the correctness of their calculation, the timely payment of state taxes and other payments to the budget established by the legislation of the USSR and the RSFSR, and compliance

On August 19, 1991, a state of emergency was declared in the country. The coup was led by the State Committee for the State of Emergency (GKChP). The State Emergency Committee saw the main task of restoring the order in the USSR that existed before 1985.

Prosecutor of the Lipetsk region A.I. Komranov supported the demands of the State Emergency Committee, and they were also supported by the chairman of the Small Council of the Regional Council of People's Deputies V.V. Donskikh, as well as the deputies gathered in the House of Soviets, including the chairman of the Stanovlyansky District Council V.A. Gerasimov.

At that time, many people began to openly hate M.S., who had by that time become President of the USSR. Gorbachev and his destructive perestroika for the country. The assembled deputies in the House of Soviets openly hoped that order would finally prevail in the country!

And although at a meeting in his district, V.A. Gerasimov and informed about the results of the meeting of the small regional council; no rallies, no meetings or conferences were held in our area. Law enforcement agencies have switched to an enhanced work regime so that the people observe law and order in everything.

But the coup failed. It was poorly prepared and there was no active operational leadership. On August 22, he was defeated, and members of the State Emergency Committee were arrested.

On August 31, 1991, an extraordinary session of the regional Council of People's Deputies was held, to which the people's deputies of the regional Council were also invited, at which they condemned the activities of the State Emergency Committee. At the same meeting, one decision was made to sell food products to residents of their district using passports.

The “Democratic Revolution” swept not only Moscow, it quickly reached our region.

Defenders of democracy immediately appeared in the area. These are the editor of the regional newspaper “Zvezda” V. Rozhnov, the chief doctor of the sanitary and epidemiological station V. Dudakov, the farmer S. Kochkin and others.

On December 12, 1991, in the meeting room of the district council, an extraordinary VII session of the district Council of People's Deputies was held, at which the issue of candidacy for the head of the district administration was considered in the presence of the Head of the regional administration G.V. Kuptsov.

The Democratic Party of Russia nominated a candidate for this position, N.N. Prikhodko. - Chairman of the Nature Conservation Committee. G.I. was also proposed for the post of head. Ogurtsov - chairman of the district executive committee.

V.A. also ran for the same position. Rozhnov - ch. editor of the newspaper "Zvezda".

And although at this session the majority of voters voted for G.I. Ogurtsov, none of these candidates qualified for the post of head of the administration of the Stanovlyansky district.

In December of the same year, the regional newspaper Zvezda began publishing additional lists of military personnel of our fellow countrymen who died or went missing during the Great Patriotic War, as well as those who died defending or liberating the region in 1941.

The district decided to create a “Book of Memory”, which was published by the editors of the newspaper “Zvezda” in 1995.

In January 1992, the district party committee was reorganized into an administration. Ivan Dmitrievich Biryukov was appointed the first head of the district administration. It was a difficult time. There is a change in the socio-economic formation in the country, which has a negative impact on all socio-economic processes.

The country's management system was lost, and the old planned economy was collapsing. Some people lost their jobs, and those who worked did not receive wages for months.

At the end of 1991, it became known in the region that the situation in livestock farming had become extremely tense: there was a decline in the production of livestock products, including milk, as well as a sharp reduction in the number of productive livestock on collective and state farms in the region. Compared to 1990, the offspring of all types of livestock also decreased. The death rate of cattle has increased on 17 farms in the district, except for the collective farm named after. Sverdlov, the breeding farm “Palna-Mikhailovsky” and the state farm “Ozersky”.

In November 1991, there were 14 farms and peasant households in the region. They allocated 542 hectares of land from the created fund, incl. 324 hectares of arable land.

Migration population growth began in the area.

In January 1992, at a meeting of the Small Council of People's Deputies, the first private enterprises were registered: “Proton” for servicing radio equipment and “Alex” for sewing and repairing shoes (municipal consumer service enterprises). Their Charter was also adopted. At the same meeting, the issue of registering the individual (family) private enterprise “Impulse” and its Charter (based on the cooperative “Stanovoeagroservis”) was considered.

In the district's farms, a new form of ownership is being adopted - economic-share.

In 1992, the first real estate auction was held in the area. The buildings of the former Georgievskaya, Ostrovskaya, Podhoroshenskaya and Veriginskaya schools, the Plotavsky first-aid post, the Dmitrievskaya MTS, and the Trostnovsky club were put up for auction.

Along with this, apartments are being privatized in the area. The administration has a commission to provide assistance to those in dire need, for which an extra-budgetary fund was created. It allocates funds to those affected by fires, those in need of treatment, and the extremely poor.

In 1992, food prices rose sharply, as did industrial goods.

Since 1993, retail outlets of entrepreneurs began operating in the area, selling chocolate products, cigarettes, video cassettes, knitwear, and imported items.

In 1993, with the aggravation of the criminal situation, police personnel were strengthened. Mainly, the replenishment of such departments is underway, on which security and public order depend.

In 1994, the economic situation in the area continues to be difficult. The number of unemployed, both registered and unregistered, is growing. People go on forced unpaid leave.

During the first quarter of 1994, such large organizations in the district as the open-type JSC Stanovoe Agroserviz, DPMK and KGSO were closed.

Due to a lack of their own financial resources, enterprises are increasingly resorting to bank loans.

The agricultural enterprises in the region continue to decline in production.

Two construction organizations in the district continue to be inactive: (DPMK “Stanovlyanskaya” and the construction company “Stanovlyanskaya”.

At the same time, the volume of industrial production is decreasing.

In October 1994, the population of the region received the opportunity to receive television information about news and events in the Lipetsk region through the Lipetsk television channel.

Thanks to the support of the district administration and, in particular, K.I. Malyutina, Secretary for Ideology in the Republic of Kazakhstan CPSU, the culture of the region survived the difficult 90s. Moreover, on May 6, 1995, a new cultural institution opened - a museum-type club, the director of which was Zoya Ivanovna Provalova (pictured on the left).

In the same year, the first church was opened in the village of Palna-Mikhailovka, the family estate of the Stakhovichs. Before this, there was not a single functioning church in the area.

In September 1995, celebrations began in honor of the great Russian writer, Nobel Prize laureate, our fellow countryman, Ivan Alekseevich Bunin. Numerous guests from various parts of Russia and many foreign countries came to his homeland to celebrate the 125th anniversary of the literary classic. The celebration took place at the Bunin family estate - in the village of Ozerki.

And on the eve of the anniversary, the regional Assembly of Deputies established the annual regional prize named after I. A. Bunin, which will be awarded for the most talented literary works that have received public recognition and are a significant contribution to the development of the literary traditions of the Lipetsk region.

Its first laureates were Lipetsk writers Alexander Adpostenkov, Sergei Panyushkin and Vasily Shakhov.

In the winter of 1996, in the village of Ozerki, in the writer’s homeland, in an abandoned building, a rural club with an auditorium for 100 seats and a stage will open.

In January of the same year, the grand opening of the new House of Culture will take place in the village. Cane.

In a number of farms in the region, technical equipment continues to decline, the volume of meat and milk production is decreasing, livestock productivity is decreasing more and more, and mortality has increased. By the level of 1996, sales of livestock decreased by 22%, milk by 24%. The number of cattle decreased by 2.3 thousand heads, pigs - by 3 thousand heads.

Along with this, the construction of housing in the public sector and the asphalting of roads stopped.

Despite the economic difficulties, thanks to the efforts of the district administration and the director of Stanovlya Distillery JSC V.A. On September 2, 1996, Gerasimov, primary school students of the Kirillovskaya Secondary School, celebrated a housewarming, crossing the threshold of a cozy new educational building.

In the same year, at Stanovaya station, a savings bank building and a dairy kitchen at the territorial medical association were opened.

In 1996, a bakery oven with a capacity of 1200 kg per day was commissioned at the bakery; fish smoking shop with a capacity of 10 tons of products per month; smoked meats workshop with a capacity of 3.5 tons per month; oil mill with a capacity of 3.5 tons per month. Much credit goes to the chairman of Raipo, Nikolai Petrovich Kolupaev.

In the summer of 1996, the Church “Leading to the Temple of the Blessed Virgin Mary” opened in the regional center. Father Dmitry was appointed church minister of the church.

Since 1997, it has become a tradition in the region to hold the professional competition “Teacher of the Year”. Its first winner was Bradautsan N.A. (Stanovlyanskaya Secondary School).

In 1997, the wage arrears of public sector employees were fully repaid.

The demographic situation remained difficult. The number of deaths in 1997 exceeded the number of births by 2.4 times.

Despite the difficulties in promoting economic transformation, the economy increasingly operates according to the laws of the market.

In 1998, there were 22 agricultural enterprises in the region, they were assigned 103,655 hectares of farmland, incl. 86,473 hectares of arable land. There were 40 farms with 2437 hectares of land. There were 8,500 personal subsidiary plots with 3, 7 thousand hectares of land. The entire total area was 1349 square kilometers. The population in the area was 21.5 thousand people, including 4 thousand agricultural workers.

The head of the district administration, Ivan Dmitrievich Biryukov, did everything to prevent the collapse of the economy and social sphere of the region.

In May 1999, Vladimir Alekseevich Gerasimov was elected to the post of head of the district administration, who, after the dissolution of the district Council of People's Deputies in October 1993, initially worked as deputy head of the district administration, and since 1996 as general director of the Stanovlya Distillery JSC. A. Gerasimov already headed the district from 1987 to 1991. In 2003, he was re-elected to a second term.

Under the leadership of the head of the district administration, all these years a policy of a pronounced social orientation has been pursued.

An important place in the economy of the region is occupied by processing industry enterprises - alcohol and oil factories, which provide 20% of gross output and 59% of tax revenues at all levels. The enterprises maintain a production culture, order and discipline, and create additional jobs. The creamery has developed new types of products: packaged milk, low-fat cheese - semi-finished product. The products produced, especially butter, are in deserved demand among the population of the district and region.

From 2000 to 2005, work was carried out on the volume of capital construction. The regional programs “Your Own Home” and “Mortgage Lending” are being increasingly implemented.

Over the years, 4 kindergartens, 2 Houses of Culture, a Youth Leisure Center, a children's playground "Island of Childhood", a gym in the village have been put into operation. Zlobino, swimming pool "Dolphin" in Stanovoy, registry office and regional museum, office of a branch of Sberbank of the Russian Federation.

Our region is agricultural and therefore there is a need for agricultural personnel. Since 2000, on the basis of the Stanovlyanskaya Secondary School, pre-university training for students in the region has been organized by teachers of the Voronezh Agrarian University. This made it possible for graduates to enter this educational institution.

In 2000, a legal technical school (Voronezh branch) was opened in Stanovoye in the building of the former office of the Stanovlyansky state farm, which existed for two years.

In 2001, much attention was paid to expanding the network of preschool educational institutions. Institutions in Kirillovo, Lukyanovka, Tolstoy Dubrava and Berezovka were added to the 11 kindergartens that are on the balance of public education. In five kindergartens, preschoolers began to learn English, and in three, choreographic classes began.

The enterprises DPMK and DRSU are being revived, and they are carrying out a large amount of work on road repair and construction.

In 2002, a record grain harvest was obtained in the entire history of the Stanovlyansky district in the Agro-Industrial Complex named after. Lermontov (head V.M. Kondrashov) - 54.5 centners per hectare.

Since 2000, German-made Holmer and Klyan combines, as well as Oryol AMP-4 and new generation K-744 tractors, have been involved in harvesting.

But in general, the equipment in the villages is worn out to the limit. The depreciation of fixed production assets, including livestock farms, machine and tractor parks and other production facilities, has reached 90% in the region. Economic instability has led to weak farms falling into disrepair. Even our flagship, SPK im. Lermontov, where grain yields of 55 centners per hectare and milk yield per cow of 4500 kg have become the norm, are losing their previous positions, having received a profit of 6 million less than in 2000. The Stanovlyansky butter factory was unable to repay the loans; KhPP – since 2001, has not repaid 13 million. 200 thousand rubles, so there is no market for grain.

In 2003, the process of reorganization of agriculture was underway. SEC "Rassvet", "Meshchersky", "Chemodanovsky" created LLC "Zarechye" (headed by Abrosimov D.A.), SEC "Stanovlyansky" - LLC "Stanovlyanskoye" (headed by Shchukin A.V.), LLC "Kirillovskoe" was created » on the basis of the Stanovlyansky agricultural production complex (founder of the Rosinka plant CJSC, director Yu.V. Kotov), ​​Palenskoye LLC on the basis of the Palensky agricultural production complex (director A.I. Tselykovsky). DUP "Palna" (director: Akhmatova A.I.), DUP "Solovyovskoye" (director: Shalamova G.I.), DUP "Brodki" (director: Selivanova G.A.) - these three farms are subsidiary unitary enterprises of Stanovlyansky creamery; and etc.

Since 2001, regional graduation balls have been held, which leave unforgettable impressions.

The connection between generations, the transfer of teaching experience, and the high efficiency of the methodological service are explained by the thoughtful and purposeful work of the regional methodological office, which is headed by T.S. Karabanova.

June 14, 2003 in the village. Stanov hosted the World Kettlebell Lifting Championship among veterans, as well as the All-Russian Competition of Rural Strongmen.

Sunny weather, music playing from the speakers, a decorated stadium, full of flags of the participating countries, created a special atmosphere of the sports festival. 200 strongmen from 50 regions of the Russian Federation and 7 countries of the world took part in it.

And it was not in vain that it took place with us. After all, the Stanovlyan land is the birthplace of Russian champions: Alexey Vorotyntsev, Mikhail Rodionov, Alexey Dmitriev and Alexey Solovyov. In the early 70s of the last century, the first youth sports school in Russia with a kettlebell lifting department opened in our village.

The Stanovlyans rejoiced when Mikhail Rodionov, who was the strongest in the weight category up to 60 kg, took the highest step of the podium.

Alexey Vorotyntsev (pictured) also set a new world record on the first day of the championship. Within an hour, with one hand, he jerked a 16-kilogram weight 1209 times!

The second day brought no less amazing results.

Stanovlya kettlebell lifting veteran Alexey Solovyov, despite a hand injury, took second place in Russia, setting a personal record.

The ceremony of awarding the athletes was very solemn and colorful.

It was nice to hear that the Lipetsk region took first place in the rural strongman competition, and the team cup was awarded to Mikhail Rodionov. Representatives of the Perm region took second place, and the Lipetsk team again took third place.

The Russian anthem was also played at the end of the world championship among veterans, where our Russian heroes were the strongest.

In order to promote kettlebell lifting and perpetuate the achievements of Stanovlya residents - champions and record holders, a decision was announced to install sculptures of Alexei Vorotyntsev and Mikhail Rodionov on the District's Walk of Fame (photo below).

(In the top photo, the head of the district administration V. A. Gerasimov is presenting cash prizes to athletes - A. Vorotyntsev, A. Solovyov, M. Rodionov for excellent performances in three categories of world kettlebell competition in our region).

On August 5, 2003, at a session of the regional Council of Deputies, the Regulations on the coat of arms and flag of the municipal formation “Stanovlyansky District” of the Lipetsk Region were adopted.

The basis of the coat of arms and flag of Stanovlyansky included the image two pyramidal oaks, young seedlings brought from Bulgaria in the 70s of the 19th century and to this day decorating the estate of the former educator M.V. Pervago.

In addition, pyramidal oaks symbolize the natural pearl of Russia - the Forest-Steppe Experimental Selection Station (Meshchera Arboretum), created by N.K. Vekhov in 1924.

Stanovlyanskaya land is the small homeland of the writers I.A. who increased the glory of Russia and were famous throughout the world. Bunina, M.M. Prishvin, poet M.Yu. Lermontov speaks about this allegorically flame of three tongues coat of arms, as well as the red stripe of the flag of the Stanovlyansky district.

The red flame on the coat of arms and the red stripe on the flag also symbolize the courage and bravery of tens of thousands of Stanovlyans who fought in the ranks of the Red Army against the Nazi invaders during the Great Patriotic War (1941 - 45). 9 Heroes of the Soviet Union are natives of our region.

Red color is a symbol of life-affirming strength, courage, celebration, life, beauty.

The green color of our flag and coat of arms means that the Stanovlyansky district is basically agricultural.

Green color shows the nature of the area, its beauty.

Yellow color (gold) is the color of the sun, wealth, grain, fertility, the elixir of life, symbolizes greatness, respect, splendor.

The words to the Anthem of the Stanovlyansky district “Stanovlyansky expanse” were written by the local poet Yuri Alekseevich Makarov, and the music for it was written by Lydia Polyakova.

The golden sun is shining,

The stars are melting in the blue

And dear Stanovoe

In front of me in all its glory.

Stanovlyanskoe expanse,

You and joy

You and sadness.

Sky, golden field

Our Bunin Rus'!

The Russian people live here -

Labor, artisan...

And in love with his native land.

I know there are other lands,

But there is no one more beautiful than you,

Beloved Russia -

Stanovlya land!

The area pays great attention to the restoration of temples. In October 2000, a stone was laid, not far from the place where the previous church was located, for the construction of the new Holy Vvedensky Church (photo below), and already in August 2003, the first divine service was held, which was conducted by Bishop Nikon of Lipetsk and Yeletsky.

In 2005, the restored Ascension Church in the village of Berezovka began to function; the church in the village is under restoration. Solovyovo. In the coming years, it is planned to build chapels in the village. Barsukovo and village. Thick Dubrava.

Voluntary donations are one of the most important financial sources for restoration and restoration work.

In 2005, a sculptural composition in honor of the woman - mother was opened on the Don highway.

The district leadership pays special attention to the improvement of populated areas. This is a long-term process that requires material costs. Therefore, at the 16th session of the district Council of Deputies dated September 5, 2002 No. 112, a decision was made on a voluntary 3 percent contribution from the salary of each working resident of the district.

As a result, more than 4 million rubles are collected annually into the extra-budgetary fund.

In 2006, the regional Program for the Harmonious Development of the Personality was approved, which is designed to create conditions for the spiritual and moral development of education, intellectual, creative and physical development of the individual. As part of its implementation, festivals of women's and men's sports, meetings with students of district schools on career guidance were held, a series of events dedicated to the family, increasing its status in society, creative festivals and much more were opened.

In the regional center, a monument to the founders of Slavic writing, Cyril and Methodius, was erected, steles with bas-reliefs of former district leaders, and a bust of Hero of Russia S. Pyatnitsky were installed.

More than 60 million rubles were used for the improvement of villages, tens of kilometers of roads with asphalt and crushed stone surfaces were laid, a new road was laid from the village of Chernoles to the Don highway, a comprehensive improvement of Palna was carried out - Mikhailovskaya, Yastrebinovskaya, Georgievskaya, Uspenskaya, Mikhailovskaya, Grunino - Vorgolskaya rural administration.

Under the Mortgage Lending program, 10 one-apartment houses were commissioned.

In 2006, the computerization of schools was largely completed.

Increased support for the agro-industrial complex from the Federal government and the regional leadership, coupled with the hard work of rural workers, made it possible to achieve good results in 2007.

Significant progress has been achieved in crop production. Grain production is on the rise, and OJSC named after them distinguished itself by its overall threshing. Lermontov - 230 tons, AF Moskovskoye LLC - 198 tons, Moskovskoye LLC - 188 tons, with average regional production 124 tons.

Throughout the history of the region, an unprecedentedly high harvest of sugar beets has been harvested.

High returns are ensured by the transfer of livestock farming to modern technological processes.

As part of the national project, 4 livestock farms were reconstructed. The meat and dairy herd is being renewed.

Since 2006, the program “Providing housing for young families of the Stanovlyansky district for 2007 – 2010” has been operating in the district. In 2007, 5 young families received subsidies in the amount of 1.7 million rubles: one family for the purchase of housing, 4 families for the construction of individual houses.

In the area there are 23 secondary schools, 17 preschool institutions, 2 centers of additional education, offices of information, methodological and psychological-pedagogical assistance. In 2007, all schools in the district were connected to broadband Internet.

1981 people study in schools, 560 children attend preschool institutions. All students receive hot meals, and schools in the district are fully supplied with vegetables and fruits.

For the fifth year in a row, the district took first place in the regional show - a competition for organizing leisure time and developing amateur artistic creativity.

In everything that has been done in the field of culture in recent years, the great merit of Klavdia Ivanovna Malyutina (pictured), head of the culture department of the district administration.

Klavdia Ivanovna headed the culture department in the late 60s of the last century. The rise of cultural life in the area began precisely with this initiative, gifted woman with inexhaustible energy...

Later, when K.I. Malyutina worked as secretary for ideology in the Republic of Kazakhstan CPSU, and paid great attention to the opening of People's Houses in remote settlements where there were no clubs and recreation centers. They appeared in Slobodka, Pokrovsky, Kuleshovka, Subbochevo, Poddolgoye, Malye Vyselki... By July 1990 there were already 14 of them!

Fellow villagers could meet here, chat, sit and listen to good music.

At the end of the 90s, Klavdia Ivanovna again headed the culture department. At her suggestion, for the first time, not only in the district, but also in the region, annual professional skills competitions began to be held. In 2000, the first winner of this competition was V. Anyukhina, a librarian at the district library.

The Culture Department and the Culture and Leisure Centers have made significant progress in recent years, thanks to the constant search for new forms and methods of work.

The central and a number of rural libraries have repeatedly won the regional “Library of the Year” competition.

A significant event in 2007 was the opening of a modern regional Center for Culture and Leisure with 400 seats.

In recent years, much has been achieved not only in the social and economic development of the region, but, most importantly, in terms of human education, shaping the consciousness of residents, and this is the most important factor for further creative work for the benefit of the people of our region.

Clean streets, flower beds, fountains, interesting architectural forms, and on New Year's holidays - fabulously decorated squares and houses - all this gives our area a unique charm. Every year something new is sure to appear both in the appearance of the regional center and in the most distant villages of the region.

History of the village of Stanovoe

The village of Stanovoe has been known since 1620. According to archival data from 1678, it was called the village of Ploskoye. It had 65 households and 620 inhabitants. The name of the village comes from the flat, flat terrain.

By the beginning of the 20th century, Ploskoye was a small village with a church in the center. About 150 families lived in houses made of wood, adobe brick, and thatched. These were land-poor and landless peasants. Each person had at his disposal an average of two and a half acres of land. At the church in the village there was a parish school, in which 35 children studied. These were mainly the children of landowners and wealthy peasants, and if someone entered school from a poor family, they did not have to study for more than two years, due to lack of funds.

The revolutionary events of 1905, which shook all of Russia, reached Ploskoye. The peasants became more and more determined to fight against the landowners. There were no open demonstrations in Ploskoe, but there were many dissatisfied.

Before the 1917 revolution, several landowners lived in the village. On the street, which is now called Sadovaya, stood the house of the landowner Zhavoronkov. According to the recollections of Ivan Tikhonovich, a resident of the village of Kryukov: “The landowner was engaged in the production of bricks and burned lime. Then he left for Yelets, and his wife took over the entire farm. She began to breed horses and raise piglets. Amazing flowers grew in her garden, which the landowner sent to Moscow for sale. The landowners had two large gardens that brought in considerable income. Their house stood on the shore of a pond, and often in the summer one could see boats with young ladies on the pond, riding and admiring the clear and quiet backwater."

According to the recollections of another resident, Vasily Nikolaevich Shchukin, another gentleman lived opposite the modern buildings of the district hospital - Vladimir Dmitrievich Myamlin. In his garden, which was called "Volodin", there were the most delicious apples, dried fruits were supplied to the tsarist troops. Peasants hired themselves out to him as day laborers.

Next to the modern pharmacy building there is still a house that belonged to the landowner Mikhail Arkhipovich Shalygin. The landowner kept bees, had land and large gardens in the villages of Klementyevo and Krutoe. His son had a bicycle and often rode it, and local children ran after the barchuk to see this two-wheeled miracle. According to the stories of local resident Maria Nesterovna Sevryukova, the landowner was not evil or greedy, he often treated his peasants to honey and apples, and never refused them anything.

Behind the pond, which is located next to the bakery, lived the landowner Andrey Vladimirovich Vorotyntsev. He had 8 children: 7 daughters and 1 son, who studied in Yelets. One of his daughters married into the family of famous landowners, the Stakhovichs, in the village of Palna-Mikhailovka. Andrei Vladimirovich had a brother, Mikhail, whose house was located on the site of the bakery, on the street. Lermontova (formerly Kukuevka).

After the October Revolution, Bolshevik Soviets were created in Yelets district. The Committee of the Poor is organized in Ploskoye, the first chairman of which was Bulavin Tikhon Akimovich. The work of the Kombedovites was not easy. They helped the poor acquire land, horses, and equipment.

Illiterate and only able to sign their names, the Kombedovites clearly followed the line of Soviet power. They were believed, and the bulk of the poor followed them along a new path. But there were still many wealthy, wealthy people in the village who did not accept the new government. They, in turn, organized in 1927 the “Partnership for Joint Cultivation of the Land,” which included landowners Kryukov, Solovyov, Myamlin, Zhavoronkov and others. Trying to hide the true nature of TOZ, several poor people were involved in its membership. The "partnership" existed for one year and disbanded. In the 1930s, the landowners were dispossessed and taken to an unknown location. The lands of these landowners became part of the Pyatiletka collective farm.

Not far from the modern military registration and enlistment office building stood a village church, mention of which has been given since the first half of the 18th century. In 1933 it was closed and a trading base was moved into the building. Before the Nazis arrived in the village, the church was set on fire, and after the war in 1947 it was blown up. A water tower was built from bricks on the street. Michurina.

In 1918-1922, the young Soviet Republic found itself surrounded by fronts. There were no White Guards in Ploskoye, but in general the Yelets district suffered greatly. After the expulsion of the White Guards from the Oryol region in order to restore Soviet power, the propaganda train "October Revolution", headed by M.I., left Moscow. Kalinin. On October 22, 1919, he stopped at Stanovaya station. Kalinin spoke to the soldiers of the 42nd Infantry Division, which was part of the 13th Army of the southern front. He called on the fighters to stand up to defend the gains of the Great October Revolution.

In 1920, a party organization was created in the village, the first communists of which were Roshchupkin N.R. and Vyvolokin F.M. A Komsomol cell was formed. The first Komsomol member - Petrykin I.F.

During these years, Ploskoe was a run-down village with one windmill, several private bakeries, shops, a veterinary site and a church.

On July 7, 1928, the 1st regional congress of Soviets of the Stanovlyansky district of the Yelets district of the Central Black Earth Region took place at the Stanovlya station, which announced the organization of the Stanovlyansky district. The village of Ploskoye became the regional center. Fedor Arkhipovich Krivonosov was elected chairman of the district executive committee.

The editorial office of the regional newspaper "Forward" (since 1931 "Zvezda") was located on Shkolny Lane. The first editor of the newspaper was Ivan Ignatievich Peshekhonov.

The school building was located on the territory of the current district administration. The school was elementary. Since 1928 it began to expand. A brick extension was built (the main one was wooden). In 1938, the school became a secondary school, the classes were large, with a total of 900 students.

In 1929, the collective farm “20 Years of October” (Twenty) was formed in the village. The brothers Ivan and Tikhon Bulavin were the first to join it. Bulavin I.A. became the first chairman. In the same year, the “Twenty” collective farm received its first tractor, with Tikhon Akimovich Bulavin driving it.

At the beginning of the 30s, five collective farms were organized on the territory of the village: “Red Path” (village Stanovaya), named after. Stalin (part of the village of Ploskoye and part of the village of Stanovaya), "Five-Year Plan" (village of Ploskoye), "Big Five-Year Plan (village of Ploskoye), "20 Years of October" (village of Ploskoye). Almost the entire working population of the village worked in them In winter, women were engaged in lace making.

According to the 1932 census - Ploskoye is the center of the Stanovlyansky district and village council, 2367 inhabitants. Even before the war, there was light in the village; electricity was generated by several mills, one of which was located in the courtyard of the department store, and the other at the beginning of the village. In 1937, a sewing point was created on the street. Pervomayskaya. The first seamstress was Avdyushina Maria Fedorovna. Suits, dresses, coats and much more were made here. During the war, the sewing shop was moved to the lower premises of the windmill (in the center of the village) and transformed into an artel named after. Osipenko. The artel began to sew overcoats, tunics, and underwear for soldiers. At the same time, a lace artel was formed, which was located on the street. Sovetskaya, not far from the pharmacy. And across the road there was a trading store where various goods were sold.

Before the war, there were many large gardens in Ploskoye, left over from former landowner estates; they greatly decorated the village. A huge, luxurious garden (“Andryushin”) was located at the beginning of 9 May Street, and then simply Kochetovka. Behind it, in the former house of landowner Andrei Vladimirovich Faustov, the first police building was subsequently located.

The territory of the bakery and the entire gap between it and the highway (now Sovetskaya Street) was occupied by two more orchards of Shalygin and Gubanov. In the middle of the apple and pear trees there was a stitch connecting the two halves of the village.

Opposite the unprepossessing building, the former district executive committee, in the area of ​​the current hospital, there was what the old-timers called the “Volodin” garden. Another garden was called “Forest”, as it was located in the southwestern, greenest part of the village.

Ploskoe was famous for its spring wells, especially its northern side. Along the entire Kochetovka, for example, there were five active wells, named after the houses near which they were dug (“Usatov”, “Penyukhin”, “Mityakin”, “Esikov”, “Sapronov”). From time to time they were cleaned, as they said at that time “by the whole world”; the water in them was considered healing.

The peaceful life of the village was unexpectedly interrupted by the Great Patriotic War, which brought a lot of suffering and destruction.

In the post-war years, the village began to restore the destroyed economy. The restoration of outbuildings and residential buildings was actively underway. In the 50s, the buildings of the House of Culture, a secondary school, the Republic of Kazakhstan CPSU, a post office, and a military registration and enlistment office were built.

By the mid-60s - the buildings of the district executive committee, the people's court, an atelier, the Beryozka restaurant, and a hotel.

Sovetskaya street. 1964

Under the Secretary of the Republic of Kazakhstan CPSU Nikolai Romanovich Rublev, a park was laid out in 1967, and new ponds (Rublev ponds) appeared. In 1968, a new sports complex welcomed athletes. In the 70s, construction began on the central district hospital, department store, and police station. In the 80s, buildings for a consumer services plant, a post office, a telegraph office, a new high school building were built, and a television repeater was installed.

In June 1984, the village of Stanovaya and the village of the Stanovaya railway station became part of the village. On October 5, 1984, by decree of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR, the village of Ploskoye was renamed the village of Stanovoye (named after the Stanovoye ravine, which received its name from the word “stan” - camp, nomadic camp).

Over the past decade, a large amount of capital construction has been completed in the village, and increased attention has been paid to the improvement of the village. A children's cultural and recreation park "Island of Childhood" was opened (2001), a youth leisure center in the village. Friendship (2002), the Vvedenskaya Church was built (2000-2003), the Alley of Culture was opened, where busts of cultural and artistic figures of famous countrymen were installed (2000), the Alleys of Military and Labor Glory were created (2000-2001), the Dolphin swimming pool (2005 ), a new cultural and leisure center was opened in the village of Stanovoe (2007).

And this is not a complete list of what has been done. It is even more difficult to list everything that is planned to be accomplished in the near future.

Playground. year 2001.

Alley of Labor Glory. 2002

Bust of the first secretary of the CPSU, Nikolai Romanovich Rublev, on the Alley of Labor Glory. 2003

Holy Vvedensky Church. 2002

Central square. 2003

District administration building. 2003.

High school building. 2003

Fountains decorated the village. 2003

Opening of the Center for Culture and Leisure in the village of Stanovoe. 2007

The park named after N.R. Rubleva. 2008

The Glade of Love is open. 2011.

Related information.

The international situation in 2018 has led to a turning point for Russia, writes diplomat and doctor of socio-political sciences Alpo Rusi.

Vladimir Putin announced early in his presidency that he wanted to return Russia to its position as a great power.

“The collapse of the USSR is the largest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” Putin's bold statement meant that in his opinion this should not have happened and he wants to fix what can be fixed.

To do this, Putin needs a new world order that does not accept the supremacy of the West, and especially the United States. At the Munich Security Conference in 2007, Putin used anti-American rhetoric not heard since the days of Mikhail Gorbachev.

Favorable economic conditions continued until 2008, when Russia also became bogged down in the financial crisis that began in the United States.

A month before the crisis, Russia used military force in Georgia and occupied South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Context

Russia has again become a great power

The Atlantic 02/28/2018

The difficult situation of Russia due to the failure of its mercenaries

Foreign Affairs 02/28/2018

Who benefits from shooting down Russian planes?

Sina.com 02/28/2018

Trump is only interested in the “Russian case”

CNN 02/28/2018

Will Russia see Ukraine as an example to follow?

Gazeta Wyborcza 02/27/2018 Russia planned to end these two conflicts without negotiations with the Georgian government, not to mention a meeting with the OSCE. It is difficult to say whether the war would have started or not if the decision about it had to be made a few weeks later.

The European Union did not punish Russia for the war with Georgia. Hopes for expanding economic cooperation were very high.

President Dmitry Medvedev wanted to create an image for Russia of a country that was developing in the direction of a Western rule of law and democracy. They did not want to destroy these expected changes with sanctions.

Sweden continued to weaken its armed forces. Experienced Foreign Minister Carl Bildt assured that Sweden does not need to change the security policy strategy developed during the reign of the Social Democrats. The Finns treated the situation more cautiously, but believed in the same prosperous image of world security.

The keys to power in Russia, even during Medvedev’s presidency, still remained with Prime Minister Putin. Under his leadership, the country launched a space weapons program that cost more than 500 billion euros. This was how the superpower strategy was supported. Geopolitics ignored OSCE principles in Europe. The conflict with the West worsened after Putin returned to the presidency in the spring of 2012.

The superpower’s strategy included actions aimed “against color revolutions,” including outside the country - in Ukraine and later in Syria. Already in the spring of 2011, Russia blocked a draft UN resolution that would force Syrian President Assad to relinquish power.

The international situation in 2018 led to a turning point for Russia. The occupation of Crimea and military operations in Syria and eastern Ukraine led to the isolation of Russia, while the economic situation became worse.

The current conditions were reminiscent to some extent of the situation when the USSR occupied Czechoslovakia in 1968.

To avoid international political and economic isolation, the Soviet leadership began to look for ways to cooperate with the West. This led to a relaxation of international tensions that lasted until the mid-1970s.

Finland played its own special role in this matter: it took the initiative to hold a conference on security in Europe with the participation of the USSR, at which human rights issues were also raised.

At the time of the OSCE summit in the summer of 1975, the period of détente was already coming to an end, and it was only discussed again when the USSR abandoned its aggressive policy in 1985.

This, in turn, led to the collapse of the USSR, which haunts Putin. Detente may be followed by collapse or at least a color revolution.

Articles on the topic

Russia and the USA: who will be crushed by instability?

Financial Times 02/27/2018

Russia feeds half the world with its wheat

Bloomberg 02/27/2018

Russia can become a pleasant neighbor

Helsingin Sanomat 02/27/2018 Last fall, Putin made a proposal according to which the UN could send peacekeepers to protect OSCE observers - but only on the western borders of the “people's republics” in eastern Ukraine. No one liked this proposal, but it took on new political significance when Russia began recruiting militarily neutral countries to serve as peacekeepers.

Does Putin, for tactical reasons, want to start a new detente in order to get rid of at least part of the Western economic sanctions?

Is it wise to send peacekeepers from neutral countries to regions where hostilities are taking place when security is constantly under threat?

The peacekeeping operation in Kosovo, KFOR, was led by NATO because traditional methods did not work during the Bosnian war. How is a similar scenario implemented in eastern Ukraine in 2018?

Russia's proposal to send peacekeepers can indeed be seen as a diplomatic gesture. It can also be seen as a consequence of the uncertainty that arose in the Kremlin when the country and its powerful oligarchs first faced real problems.

Russia will have to make concessions in eastern Ukraine in order to achieve the lifting of at least some sanctions. After the World Cup in early autumn, it will become clear whether Russia will tighten its aggressive strategy, which would be a logical step, or whether a new period of cautious détente will begin that will last several years.

The third option is aggravation of the crisis in Russia, which will affect the internal situation in the country. Power will become even more concentrated in the Kremlin, and if this does not happen, then protests will begin - either in the form of an organized overthrow of power, or in the form of a “Russian spring”, when tanks take to the streets.

InoSMI materials contain assessments exclusively of foreign media and do not reflect the position of the InoSMI editorial staff.