Perestroika exposed long-hidden contradictions Soviet system, including the unresolved national issue and its new aggravation caused by the strengthening of the positions of national elites in the union and autonomous republics ah USSR. Since the late 80s, the movement for secession from the USSR in the Baltic republics has intensified. In the fall of 1988, representatives of the popular fronts won elections to the central and local authorities of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. They declared their main task to be the achievement of complete independence, the creation sovereign states. In November 1988, the Declaration of State Sovereignty was approved by the Supreme Council of the Estonian SSR. Identical documents were adopted by Lithuania, Latvia, the Azerbaijan SSR (1989) and the Moldavian SSR (1990). Following the announcements of sovereignty, the elections of the presidents of the former union republics took place. On June 12, 1990, the 1st Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR adopted the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Russia. It legislated the priority of republican laws over union ones. The first president of the Russian Federation was B.N. Yeltsin, the vice-president was A.V. Rutskaya. The declarations of the union republics on sovereignty were placed at the center political life question of continued existence Soviet Union. The 4th Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR (December 1990) spoke in favor of preserving the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and its transformation into a democratic federal state. The congress adopted a resolution “On the general concept of the union treaty and the procedure for its conclusion.” The document noted that the basis of the renewed Union would be the principles set out in the republican declarations: equality of all citizens and peoples, the right to self-determination and democratic development, territorial integrity. In accordance with the resolution of the congress, an all-Union referendum was held to resolve the issue of preserving the renewed Union as a federation of sovereign republics. 76.4% were in favor of preserving the USSR total number persons participating in the voting.

The August 1991 events and their consequences.

August 1991 and its consequences. Some of the top leaders of the Soviet Union perceived the preparations for signing a new union treaty as an existential threat single state and tried to prevent it. In the absence of Gorbachev in Moscow, on the night of August 19, it was created State Committee State of Emergency (GKChP), which included Vice President G. I. Yanaev, Prime Minister V. S. Pavlov, Minister of Defense D. T. Yazov, KGB Chairman V. A. Kryuchkov, Minister of Internal Affairs B. K. Pugo and others. The State Emergency Committee introduced in certain areas of the country state of emergency; declared the power structures that acted contrary to the 1977 constitution disbanded; suspended the activities of opposition parties; banned rallies and demonstrations; established control over the media; sent troops to Moscow. On the morning of August 20, the Supreme Council of Russia issued an appeal to the citizens of the republic, in which it regarded the actions of the State Emergency Committee as a coup d'état and declared them illegal. At the call of President Yeltsin, tens of thousands of Muscovites took up defensive positions around the Supreme Soviet building to prevent troops from storming it. On August 21, a session of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR began, supporting the leadership of the republic. On the same day, USSR President Gorbachev returned from Crimea to Moscow, and members of the State Emergency Committee were arrested.

The problem of interethnic relations in our state is of special importance, which naturally makes it very relevant for our region with its specifics and characteristics in the form of residence of different peoples professing different religions. IN Lately Various materials on this topic are published in the media and on the Internet. A collection of scientific papers based on the results of a conference in one Higher Educational Institution was recently published Stavropol Territory. In one of the works, the author of which is Tufanov, the issues of religious tolerance, nationalism and interethnic relations in the Caucasus are considered.

So, according to the author, the problem of tolerance and religious tolerance is the most acute, complex and publicized, especially in multinational regions, such as the North Caucasus (more than 50 ethnic groups live here). On this topic There are debates everywhere, many opinions are expressed at all social levels: both at the highest, state level, and among ordinary citizens.

People of all ages are fascinated by conversations related to tolerance and religious tolerance, nationalism and interethnic relations in the Caucasus, and as you know, as many people as there are, so many opinions. Some adhere to peaceful positions and advocate fraternal relations and friendship of the peoples living in this territory. Others support extremely nationalist positions, which sometimes reach the point of Nazism and xenophobia.

The latter include leaders of various movements, both Islamic and Slavic. Interethnic and interethnic conflicts are a very serious task, which today is dealt with by the intelligence services of many Western countries, and simply provocateurs. And the bulk of their supporters are young people. This is the most terrible thing in such trends, because young people are the hope of the people, and boys and girls with a “clouded” mind and an incorrect attitude towards other nations are unlikely to be able to maintain peace and unity in our region in the future.

Many of the extreme people simply do not know the history of Russia, the Caucasus, the true meaning of the texts of the Koran and the Bible, which certainly plays into the hands of those who stand behind such movements. Therefore, in my opinion, the first thing that needs to be done is to educate young people in the ethnic direction with early years. People who know traditions, their meaning and the history of their origin will appreciate both their own and foreign cultures. And that means each other. After all, nowhere will we find such a variety of customs, beliefs and other cultural heritage as here - in the multinational North Caucasus.

Often interethnic hatred is based on religion. On this score, all religious leaders of the Caucasus, both Orthodox and Muslims, have a common opinion: “Millions of people around the world want freedom and prosperity for themselves and for all humanity... religion and politics should serve as a solid foundation for peace and dialogue between civilizations, and not be used as a cause of disagreement and conflict. We are all created by the One Creator, and this determines our mutual responsibility for preserving the sacred gift of life."

People must unite despite their different nationalities, fight against terrorist attacks and other fratricidal clashes in the world and in the Caucasus.

The leadership of our region and Russian Federation in general, pursuing a national policy here taking into account the ethnic, cultural and historical characteristics of the population. Since living conditions form the national consciousness of the population - a complex set of social, political, economic, moral, aesthetic, philosophical, religious and other views and beliefs that characterize a certain level of spiritual development of the nation. The concept of “national consciousness” includes such elements as the nation’s awareness of the need for its unity, integrity and cohesion in the name of realization national interests; understanding the need for good neighborly relations with other socio-ethnic communities; conscious attitude of the nation to its material and spiritual values.

It seems to me that the main task national policy– not to oppress any of the peoples of the Caucasus, to provide the population with the opportunity to express themselves and follow the customs of their ancestors, without causing inconvenience to representatives of other nationalities. The topic of relations in the region, as mentioned earlier, is raised at the state level, where almost every leader has his own opinion, almost completely opposite to each other.

Thus, we can conclude that every resident of the Caucasus should be interested in solving the national problem. It is necessary to ensure decent living conditions in every subject of our region for all peoples at the state level. And also to encourage the youth of the Caucasus to interact and conduct constructive dialogue. People must understand the need for brotherly relations and resist conflicts in every possible way. We must preserve the Caucasus for future generations.

Kiseleva Kristina

Undoubtedly, the USSR was an empire. The empire is quite powerful. And the process of collapse of the USSR is nothing more than the collapse of a large empire.

In this regard, there is a common statement, or rather an assumption, that all empires collapsed, disintegrated, perished due to the inability to combine the essence of the empire as a simultaneously self-disintegrating and self-destructive system. At the modern level, this should be taken as the country’s exhaustion of its spatial framework (extensive development), and the state’s lack of understanding of the need to change the direction of external and, above all, domestic policy. Based on the principle of analogies, one can see here almost main reason the collapse of the USSR and, naturally, its internal economic relations, that is, the entire socialist national economic complex.

Download:

Preview:

Ministry of Education and Science of the Krasnodar Territory

State budgetary professional educational institution Krasnodar region

"Ladoga Multidisciplinary College"

History report

On the topic of:

"Interethnic crisis and the collapse of the USSR"

The work was completed by a first year student

Group 8 by profession

cook, pastry chef

Kiseleva Kristina Sergeevna

Krasnodar 2017

1. Introduction

2. Exacerbation of interethnic conflicts

3.Belovezhskaya agreement

4. Consequences of the collapse of the USSR

Conclusion

1. Introduction

Undoubtedly, the USSR was an empire. The empire is quite powerful. And the process of collapse of the USSR is nothing more than the collapse of a large empire.

In this regard, there is a common statement, or rather an assumption, that all empires collapsed, disintegrated, perished due to the inability to combine the essence of the empire as a simultaneously self-disintegrating and self-destructive system. At the modern level, this should be taken as the country exhausting its spatial framework (extensive development), and the state’s lack of understanding of the need to change the direction of foreign and, above all, domestic policy. Based on the principle of analogies, one can see here perhaps the main reason for the collapse of the USSR and, naturally, its internal economic relations, that is, the entire socialist national economic complex.

Undoubtedly, this topic is relevant in our time. Having studied the problems of the period under review (late 50s - 91s), it is possible to identify the reasons for the economic lag of our state. Since this topic has been little studied, the views of historians differ.

Historian A.G. Mechanic believes that in the period from 1917 to 1991. took place nothing less than the Great Revolution, and the entire existence of the Soviet state was only a transition period to a new Russian statehood. M. Golovin believes that it was the collapse of the army that led to the collapse of the USSR. There is an opinion about the discrepancy between ethnopolitics and geopolitics of the USSR. This topic was studied by such politicians as E. Batalov, A. Zubov, T. Kamosa, V. Tsederbaum-Levitsky and others.

Goal of the work – study the process of the collapse of the USSR. To achieve this goal, it is necessary to solve a number of problems:

Identify the reasons for the collapse of the USSR;

Consider the 1991 Bialowieza Agreement;

Summarize the collapse of the USSR.

2. Exacerbation of interethnic conflicts

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

The inability of the central authorities to cope with economic difficulties caused growing discontent in the republics. It intensified due to worsening pollution problems environment, deterioration environmental situation due to an accident at Chernobyl nuclear power plant. As before, local dissatisfaction was generated by the insufficient attention of the union authorities to the needs of the republics, and the dictates of the center in resolving local issues.

The centers uniting local opposition forces were popular fronts, new political parties and movements (Rukh in Ukraine, Sajudis in Lithuania, etc.). They became the main exponents of the ideas of state isolation of the union republics and their secession from the USSR. The country's leadership turned out to be unprepared to solve the problems caused by interethnic and interethnic conflicts and the growth of the separatist movement in the republics.

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

In 1988, hostilities began between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh, a territory populated predominantly by Armenians, but which was part of the AzSSR. An armed conflict between Uzbeks and Meskhetian Turks broke out in Fergana. The center of interethnic clashes was Novy Uzen (Kazakhstan). The appearance of thousands of refugees - this would be one of the results of the conflicts that took place

3. Bialowieza Agreement

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

On June 12, 1990, the First Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR adopted the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Russia. It legislated the priority of republican laws over union ones. B.N. Yeltsin became the first president of the Russian Federation, and A.V. Rutskaya became the vice-president. Declarations of sovereignty by the union republics placed the question of the continued existence of the Soviet Union at the center of political life. The IV Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR (December 1990) spoke in favor of preserving the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and its transformation into a democratic federal state. The congress adopted a resolution “On the general concept of the union treaty and the procedure for its conclusion.” The document noted that the basis of the renewed Union would be the principles set out in the republican declarations: equality of all citizens and peoples, the right to self-determination and democratic development, territorial integrity. In accordance with the resolution of the congress, an all-Union referendum was held to resolve the issue of preserving the renewed Union as a federation of sovereign republics. 76.4% of the total number of people participating in the vote were in favor of preserving the USSR.

In April - May 1991, negotiations between M. S. Gorbachev and the leaders of nine union republics on the issue of a new union treaty took place in Novo-Ogarevo (the residence of the President of the USSR near Moscow). All participants in the negotiations supported the idea of ​​​​creating a renewed Union and signing such an agreement.

His project provided for the creation of the Union of Sovereign States (USS) as a democratic federation of equal Soviet sovereign republics. Changes were planned in the structure of government and administration, the adoption of a new Constitution, and changes in the electoral system. The signing of the agreement was scheduled for August 20, 1991.

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

On the night of August 19, USSR President M. S. Gorbachev was removed from power. Group statesmen announced the impossibility of M. S. Gorbachev - due to the state of his health - to fulfill presidential duties. A state of emergency was introduced in the country for a period of 6 months, rallies and strikes were prohibited. It was announced the creation of the State Emergency Committee - the State Committee for the State of Emergency in the USSR. It includes Vice President G.I. Yanaev, Prime Minister V.S. Pavlov, KGB Chairman V.A. Kryuchkov, Defense Minister D.T. Yazov and other representatives of government agencies.

The State Emergency Committee declared its tasks to overcome the economic and political crisis, interethnic and civil confrontation and anarchy. Behind these words was the main task: the restoration of the order that existed in the USSR before 1985.

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

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

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

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

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

4. Consequences of the collapse of the USSR

There are several consequences of the collapse of the USSR:

1. In the political sphere, the collapse of the USSR marked the beginning of a long-term process of changing the global and regional balances of power: economic, political, military. The whole system international relations has become less stable and less predictable. The threat of a global outbreak has receded, including nuclear war, however, the likelihood has increased local wars and armed conflicts.

2. Russia's political potential and influence have sharply decreased in comparison with the USSR, and its ability to defend its interests. Having retained 4/5 of the territory of the USSR, it has little more than half the population of the former Union, controls no more than half of the Union's 1990 gross national product and has retained about 60% of its defense industry.

3. The problem of minorities living outside their national homelands has arisen. Their number as a result of the migration processes of the last ten years is about 50-55 million people, including 20-25 million Russians. Protecting their interests using traditional diplomacy methods in the long term is practically impossible and requires other, comprehensive strategies.

4. Millions of human connections are broken. Many Russians and citizens of the CIS countries have developed a “divided nation” complex. If the processes of tightening the border regime between states, now officially rejected by the Commonwealth, begin, this could qualitatively aggravate the feeling of separation of people and bring it to a crisis level.

5. The collapse of the USSR did not become a completed act, but only initiated a long - for several decades - process of building new independent states. This process will inevitably be characterized by significant instability. Some states may turn out to be unviable and will disintegrate and create new formations. Instability will have to be regulated - preferably through political means.

6. The problem of new borders has arisen, which can cause aggravation in relations between states created on the territory of the former Soviet Union, where such a problem did not exist. The new states faced a number of difficult border issues.

7. Internationally, the collapse of the USSR was accompanied by some positive changes. External world became less afraid of Russia compared to the USSR. The potential for the creation of an environment hostile to it has decreased relatively.

Conclusion

The collapse of the USSR was a consequence of mistakes in the ruling environment. Throughout the history of the Soviet state, attempts were made to liberalize the “system,” but all reforms were unfinished.

There was a progressive alienation of the people from power in society. Power hung in the air; it had no social support.

The overwhelming majority of resources were directed to the development of the military-industrial complex. Although it was necessary to develop high-tech industries and invest in the field of computer technology. Instead, there was an exorbitant development of heavy industry.

1985 - the election of M. S. Gorbachev - the declaration by the leadership of the CPSU of a course towards perestroika - a time of great changes, the scale of which is rightly compared with events such as the Great French Revolution or October 1917 in Russia. However, it was protracted, painful and ended, having virtually exhausted itself, revealing the fact that the totalitarian system is not amenable to reform.

Bibliography

Barsenkov A. S., Vdovin A. I. History of Russia 1917-2014.

Wert N. History of the Soviet state 1900-1995. - M.: Progress Academy, 2014.

Gumilyov L.N. From Rus' to Russia. – M.: Progress, 2013.

Danilov A. A., Kosulina L. G. History of the state and peoples of Russia. XX century. - M.: New textbook, 2015.

Danilov A. A., Kosulina L. G. History of Russia, twentieth century. – M., 2015.

Dmitrenko V.P., Esakov V.P., Shestakov V.A. History of the Fatherland. XX century. – M.: Bustard. 20014.

Dolutsky I. I. National history. XX century. - M.: Mnemosyne, 2014.

Zuev M. N. History of Russia. - M.: Education, 2015.

History of Russia XX - early XXI century/under. ed. Milova L.V. – M.: Science. 2016.

Kirillov V.V. Domestic history of the twentieth century in tables and diagrams: To help high school students and applicants. - M.: House of Pedagogy, 2013.

Lichman B.V. History of Russia. – M., 2014.

Orlov A. S., Georgiev V. A., Neorgieva N. G., Sivokhina T. A. History of Russia. Textbook. – M.: Prospekt, 2014.

National history. Textbook for universities / ed. Prof. Sh. M. Munchaeva. - M.: Nauka, 2013.

Platonov S.F. Course of lectures on Russian history. - M., 2012.

Pushkarev S. T. Review of Russian history. - M., 2014.

Democratization of society and the national question. The democratization of public life could not but affect the sphere of interethnic relations. Problems that had been accumulating for years, which the authorities had long tried not to notice, manifested themselves in drastic forms as soon as there was a whiff of freedom.

The first open mass protests took place as a sign of disagreement with the number of national schools decreasing from year to year and the desire to expand the scope of the Russian language. At the beginning of 1986, under the slogans “Yakutia is for the Yakuts”, “Down with the Russians!” Student demonstrations took place in Yakutsk.

Gorbachev's attempts to limit the influence of national elites caused even more active protests in a number of republics. In December 1986, as a sign of protest against the appointment of the Russian G.V. Kolbin as the first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan instead of D.A. Kunaev, demonstrations of many thousands, which turned into riots, took place in Alma-Ata. The investigation into abuses of power that took place in Uzbekistan has caused widespread discontent in the republic.

Demands for the restoration of autonomy were voiced even more actively than in previous years Crimean Tatars, Germans of the Volga region. Transcaucasia became the zone of the most acute ethnic conflicts.

Interethnic conflicts and the formation of mass national movements. In 1987 Nagorno-Karabakh (Azerbaijan SSR) mass unrest began among Armenians, who make up the majority of the population of this autonomous region. They demanded that Karabakh be transferred to the Armenian SSR. The promise of the allied authorities to “consider” this issue was perceived as an agreement to satisfy these demands. All this led to massacres of Armenians in Sumgait (Az SSR). It is characteristic that the party apparatus of both republics not only did not interfere with the interethnic conflict, but also actively participated in the creation of national movements. Gorbachev gave the order to send troops into Sumgayit and declare a curfew there.

Against the backdrop of the Karabakh conflict and the impotence of the allied authorities, popular fronts were created in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia in May 1988. If at first they spoke “in support of perestroika,” then after a few months they declared their ultimate goal to secede from the USSR. The most widespread and radical of these organizations was Sąjūdis (Lithuania). Soon, under pressure from the popular fronts, the Supreme Councils of the Baltic republics decided to declare national languages ​​as state languages ​​and deprive the Russian language of this status.

The requirement to introduce the native language in state and educational institutions sounded in Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova.

In the republics of Transcaucasia, interethnic relations have worsened not only between the republics, but also within them (between Georgians and Abkhazians, Georgians and Ossetians, etc.).

In the Central Asian republics, for the first time in many years, there was a threat of Islamic fundamentalism penetrating from outside.

In Yakutia, Tataria, and Bashkiria, movements were gaining strength, whose participants demanded that these autonomous republics be given union rights.

The leaders of national movements, trying to secure mass support for themselves, placed special emphasis on the fact that their republics and peoples “feed Russia” and the Union Center. As the economic crisis deepened, this instilled in people's minds the idea that their prosperity could only be ensured by secession from the USSR.

For the party leadership of the republics, an exceptional opportunity was created to ensure a quick career and prosperity.

“Gorbachev’s team” was not ready to offer ways out of the “national impasse” and therefore constantly hesitated and was late in making decisions. The situation gradually began to get out of control.

Elections of 1990 in the union republics. The situation became even more complicated after elections were held in the union republics in early 1990 on the basis of a new electoral law. Leaders of national movements won almost everywhere. The party leadership of the republics chose to support them, hoping to remain in power.

The “parade of sovereignties” began: on March 9, the Declaration of Sovereignty was adopted by the Supreme Council of Georgia, on March 11 - by Lithuania, on March 30 - by Estonia, on May 4 - by Latvia, on June 12 - by the RSFSR, on June 20 - by Uzbekistan, on June 23 - by Moldova, on July 16 - by Ukraine , July 27 - Belarus.

Gorbachev's reaction was initially harsh. For example, economic sanctions were adopted against Lithuania. However, with the help of the West, the republic managed to survive.

In the conditions of discord between the Center and the republics, the leaders of Western countries - the USA, Germany, France - tried to assume the role of arbiters between them.

All this forced Gorbachev to announce, with great delay, the beginning of the development of a new Union Treaty.

Development of a new Union Treaty. Work on preparing a fundamentally new document, which was to become the basis of the state, began in the summer of 1990. The majority of members of the Politburo and the leadership of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR opposed the revision of the foundations of the Union Treaty of 1922. Therefore, Gorbachev began to fight against them with the help of B. N. Yeltsin, who was elected Chairman of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR, and the leaders of other union republics, who supported his course towards reforming the Soviet Union.

The main idea included in the draft of the new treaty was the provision of broad rights to the union republics, primarily in the economic sphere (and later even their acquisition of economic sovereignty). However, it soon became clear that Gorbachev was not ready to do this either. From the end of 1990, the union republics, now enjoying great freedom, decided to act independently: a series of bilateral agreements were concluded between them in the field of economics.

Meanwhile, the situation in Lithuania became sharply more complicated, the Supreme Council of which adopted laws one after another that formalized in practice the sovereignty of the republic. In January 1991, Gorbachev, in an ultimatum form, demanded that the Supreme Council of Lithuania restore the full force of the USSR Constitution, and after their refusal, he introduced additional military formations. This caused clashes between the army and the population in Vilnius, which resulted in the death of 14 people. The tragic events in the capital of Lithuania caused a violent reaction throughout the country, once again compromising the Union Center.

On March 17, 1991, a referendum was held on the fate of the USSR. Every citizen who had the right to vote received a ballot with the question: “Do you consider it necessary to preserve the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics, in which the rights and freedoms of a person of any nationality will be fully guaranteed?” 76% of the population of the huge country spoke in favor of maintaining a single state. However, it was no longer possible to stop the collapse of the USSR.

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

August 1991 and its consequences. Some of the top leaders of the Soviet Union perceived the preparations for signing a new union treaty as a threat to the existence of a single state and tried to prevent it.

In the absence of Gorbachev in Moscow, on the night of August 19, the State Committee for a State of Emergency (GKChP) was created, which included Vice President G. I. Yanaev, Prime Minister V. S. Pavlov, Minister of Defense D. T. Yazov, KGB Chairman V.A. Kryuchkov, Minister of Internal Affairs B.K. Pugo and others. The State Emergency Committee introduced a state of emergency in certain regions of the country; declared the power structures that acted contrary to the 1977 constitution disbanded; suspended the activities of opposition parties; banned rallies and demonstrations; established control over the media; sent troops to Moscow.

On the morning of August 20, the Supreme Council of Russia issued an appeal to the citizens of the republic, in which it regarded the actions of the State Emergency Committee as a coup d'état and declared them illegal. At the call of President Yeltsin, tens of thousands of Muscovites took up defensive positions around the Supreme Soviet building to prevent troops from storming it. On August 21, a session of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR began, supporting the leadership of the republic. On the same day, USSR President Gorbachev returned from Crimea to Moscow, and members of the State Emergency Committee were arrested. Collapse of the USSR. The attempt by members of the State Emergency Committee to save the Soviet Union led to the exact opposite result - the collapse of the unified state accelerated. On August 21, Latvia and Estonia declared independence, on August 24 - Ukraine, on August 25 - Belarus, on August 27 - Moldova, on August 30 - Azerbaijan, on August 31 - Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, on September 9 - Tajikistan, on September 23 - Armenia, on October 27 - Turkmenistan . The Union Center, compromised in August, turned out to be of no use to anyone.

Now we could only talk about creating a confederation. On September 5, the V Extraordinary Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR actually announced self-dissolution and transfer of power State Council USSR as part of the leaders of the republics. Gorbachev, as the head of a single state, turned out to be superfluous. On September 6, the USSR State Council recognized the independence of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. This was the beginning of the real collapse of the USSR.

On December 8, President of the Russian Federation B. N. Yeltsin, Chairman of the Supreme Council of Ukraine L. M. Kravchuk and Chairman of the Supreme Council of Belarus S. S. Shushkevich gathered in Belovezhskaya Pushcha (Belarus). They announced the denunciation of the Union Treaty of 1922 and the end of the existence of the USSR. " Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a subject of international law and geopolitical reality ceases to exist,” said the statement of the leaders of the three republics.

Instead of the Soviet Union, the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) was created, which initially united 11 former Soviet republics (excluding the Baltic states and Georgia). On December 27, Gorbachev announced his resignation. The USSR ceased to exist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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