The signing of a new union treaty was planned. The Union Treaty is almost signed. Why the Union did not take place

Innokenty Adyasov, member of the Expert Analytical Council under the Committee on CIS Affairs of the State Duma - especially for RIA Novosti.

The first meeting to prepare the agreement took place on May 24, 1991 at the residence of the President of the USSR Novo-Ogarevo near Moscow (hence the name of the process). Representatives of nine republics took part in it: the RSFSR, the Ukrainian SSR, the BSSR, Azerbaijan and five Central Asian ones.

After long and at times very tense discussions, a compromise was reached in June: the USSR should transform into a soft federation. The issues of defense, security, foreign policy, common financial policy (issue of the union currency), and common infrastructure remained with the union center. Most economic issues, issues of social and cultural policy were transferred to the jurisdiction of the union republics, and citizenship of the union republics was introduced.

It was assumed that the new head of the union government would be the President of Kazakhstan. The prepared Union Treaty was considered open for signature by all republics from August 20, 1991.

Russia's position

By August 1991, there was no consensus in the environment about the new Union Treaty. In general, the position of the Russian leadership on concluding the agreement was extremely ambivalent. On the one hand, Boris Yeltsin advocated the creation of a renewed Union, on the other, since the winter of 1991, negotiations had been ongoing on the creation of a kind of confederation of Russia-Ukraine-Belarus-Kazakhstan “horizontally” without the participation of the Union Center.

Few people know that the first attempt to conclude the “Belovezhskaya Accords” was made back in February 1991. This idea was actively supported by Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kravchuk, then the head of the Supreme Council of Ukraine. However, Belarusian Prime Minister Vyacheslav Kebich and the head of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev opposed it.

A consistent supporter of the Union Treaty was the acting chairman of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR, Ruslan Khasbulatov, although he expressed certain complaints about its text. In an interview with Radio Liberty in August 2001, Ruslan Khasbulatov recalled: “Yeltsin and I argued a lot - should we go to the meeting on August 20? And finally, I convinced Yeltsin, saying that if we didn’t even go there, we wouldn’t form a delegation , this will be perceived as our desire to destroy the Union."

The position of the Russian leadership was monitored extremely closely in other union republics, primarily in Ukraine.

Ukraine's position

Anti-union sentiments in the summer of 1991 were strong only in the West of Ukraine and partly in Kyiv. The center of Ukraine and the Left Bank actively advocated signing the agreement and preserving the Union - in the referendum, more than 70 percent of Ukrainian citizens voted for it.

The Ukrainian government was most concerned about protecting the republic’s consumer market. In November 1990, cards were introduced in Ukraine. Since that time, Ukrainians, along with wages in Soviet rubles, began to receive multi-colored “sheets of coupons”, without which it was difficult to buy something in the state trade system.

Some Ukrainian experts began to retroactively declare that even then Ukraine began to introduce its own currency. To put it mildly, they are disingenuous. Residents of Russian megacities remember the same coupons for almost all consumer goods - from cigarettes to sugar.
The consumer market crisis was common to everyone. Meanwhile, against the backdrop of the all-Union crisis, many unfortunate economists have appeared, stubbornly arguing that “Ukraine feeds the entire Union” and that in a few years an independent Ukraine will certainly become a “second France.”

For the sake of objectivity, it must be said that such conversations were then very popular in Russia. “The Union republics hang a heavy burden on our economy,” sounded a persistent refrain.

Contrary to the popular cliché, the West was not interested in the collapse of the USSR in the summer of 1991. Another socialist federation, Yugoslavia, was already creeping into civil war, and getting a new source of tension with nuclear weapons would be too much.

During a visit to Kyiv in early August 1991, the then US President conveyed to the Ukrainian leadership that the United States was not interested in the emergence of an independent Ukraine.

Why didn't the Union take place?

After 20 years, the question arises again: did the new Union have a chance?

According to a direct and active participant in those events, the former President of Tatarstan Mentimer Shaimiev, “be that as it may, the Union had a real chance of being preserved by granting broad powers to the union republics.”

It must be said that a personal factor played a huge role in disrupting the process of creating a new Union. In rejection of the confederation, seemingly opposing forces united in the most surprising way. On the one hand, they were the “guardians” of the former USSR from the conservative wing of the party and state leadership (the actions of the putschists were aimed, first of all, at disrupting the signing of the new Union Treaty). On the other hand, there were the pseudo-democratic elites that were actively forming at that time, represented by people from the republican leadership of the CPSU, who wanted full power in their territories - the former union republics. Russia, led by its leader Yeltsin, was no exception in this sense.

After the failure of the Emergency Committee, Mikhail Gorbachev still tried to revive the Novoogarevo process and create at least some kind of formation on the ruins of the USSR.

On December 9, 1991, seven republics (excluding Ukraine and Azerbaijan) planned to sign an agreement on the creation of a confederal Union with its capital in Minsk.

However, on December 8, the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus announced in Belovezhskaya Pushcha the dissolution of the USSR and.

The majority of the population of the three Slavic republics believed that the Commonwealth would become a new format of the Union, but these hopes were not justified.

Twenty years later

None of the former Soviet republics, including the Baltic pioneers of secession from the USSR, oil-rich Azerbaijan and Russia itself, benefited from the collapse of a single state, or more precisely, from the destruction of a common economic space.

The Soviet economy had a very high level of cooperation, up to 80 percent of products were created jointly and then distributed among the republics. The collapse of the all-Union market led to a collapse in production, galloping inflation, and the disappearance of knowledge-intensive industries.

The most indicative in this regard are the problems of Ukraine after gaining independence. The Ukrainian aerospace industry, due to the severance of cooperation ties with Russia and lack of funding, has significantly reduced production volumes; many extremely promising projects that are at a high stage of readiness have been mothballed.

20 years later, many of the ideas contained in the draft Union Treaty again become relevant during the creation of the Eurasian Union. and the EurAsEC SES are actually the first stages of creating a new Union, primarily of an economic orientation.

Hopefully, the current political elites of post-Soviet states will have enough wisdom not to repeat the mistakes of 20 years ago.

At the same time, negotiations on the final version of the Union Treaty, which began in April, continued in Novo-Ogarevo. At a separate closed meeting M.S. Gorbachev, B.N. Yeltsin and N.A. Nazarbayev (head of Kazakhstan) on July 29, 1991, personnel issues were also discussed.

July 31, 1991 Assistant to the President of the USSR G.Kh. Shakhnazarov, after agreeing with Yeltsin, presented Gorbachev with a schedule for the multi-stage signing of the new Union Treaty: August 20, 1991 - RSFSR and Kazakhstan, September 3 - Belarus and Uzbekistan, September 17 - Azerbaijan and Tajikistan, October 1 - Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan, October 22 (tentative) - Ukraine and, possibly, Armenia and Moldova, as well as the allied delegation. At the end of the process, the President of the USSR had to put his signature. After this, the agreement came into force.

The strange system of multi-stage signing of the treaty was explained by the need to give Ukraine time to decide on what conditions it would enter the renewed Union.

On August 2, 1991, the President of the USSR announced on Central Television that on August 20, Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan would begin the procedure for signing a new Union Treaty. After this, Gorbachev went on vacation to Crimea (the town of Foros).

State Emergency Committee

On the eve of the signing of the Union Treaty, on August 19, 1991, the State Committee for a State of Emergency (GKChP) was created. Formally, it was headed by Vice-President of the USSR G.I. Yanaev, who issued a decree on the temporary performance of the duties of the President of the USSR due to Gorbachev’s inability to fulfill the duties of head of state “for health reasons.” The Committee also included the Prime Minister of B.C. Pavlov, Minister of Defense D.T. Yazov, Minister of Internal Affairs B.K. Pugo, KGB Chairman V.A. Kryuchkov, Deputy Chairman of the Defense Council under the President of the USSR,

O.D. Baklanov, President of the Association of State Enterprises of Industry, Construction, Transport and Communications of the USSR, General Director of the Research and Production Association “Machine-Building Plant named after. M.I. Kalinin" A.I. Tizyakov, Chairman of the Peasant Union of the USSR V.A. Starodubtsev.

The “Statement of the Soviet Leadership,” signed by Yanaev, Pavlov and Baklanov and broadcast on Central Television on the morning of August 19, reported that a state of emergency was being introduced in certain areas of the USSR for a period of 6 months from August 19 in order to put an end to “confrontation, chaos, anarchy.” . During this period, the highest power in the country passes into the hands of the State Emergency Committee, whose decisions are binding for strict execution by all authorities throughout the entire territory of the USSR. The State Emergency Committee promised to establish the unconditional supremacy of the USSR Constitution and the laws of the USSR throughout the entire territory of the Union.

Even before the official announcement of its existence, on the night of August 19, the State Emergency Committee gave instructions to arrest the President of the RSFSR, who was at his dacha near Moscow. The KGB special anti-terrorism group Alpha, having cordoned off the dacha, was awaiting the decisive order to complete the operation. He didn’t act, the State Emergency Committee gave the all clear. During the days of the August putsch, the Russian leadership acted unitedly, energetically, and aggressively. The State Emergency Committee, on the contrary, acted indecisively and passively.

By order of the State Emergency Committee, troops and armored vehicles were brought into Moscow. Already on the morning of August 19, the building of the Supreme Soviet of Russia began to be surrounded by Muscovites who feared the dispersal of the Russian parliament and were ready to defend it. In his address “To the Citizens of Russia” B.N. Yeltsin, Chairman of the Russian Government I.S. Silaev and acting Chairman of the Supreme Council of Russia R.I. Khasbulatov characterized the actions of the State Emergency Committee as a reactionary, anti-constitutional coup with the violent removal from power of the legally elected President of the country and declared the “so-called committee” and all its decisions illegal. B.N. Yeltsin issued a decree: all decisions of the Emergency Committee are not valid on Russian territory. It is symbolic that the President of Russia spoke in front of his supporters and announced this historic decree, climbing onto one of the tanks that arrived in the capital on the orders of the State Emergency Committee. The construction of barricades began around the White House. Even at night, about 10 thousand people remained near the building of the Supreme Council, forming a living ring. Russian citizens were ready to defend the White House. In the face of this determination, the Emergency Committee never dared to give the order for the assault. After three defenders of the White House (D. Komar, I. Krichevsky and V. Usov) fell under infantry fighting vehicles moving along the Garden Ring, the withdrawal of armored vehicles and troops from Moscow began.

On the morning of August 22, 1991, the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR sent a delegation led by Vice-President of the RSFSR A.V. to Gorbachev in Foros. Rutsky to bring the President of the USSR to Moscow. At the same time as Rutskoi, Yazov and Kryuchkov flew to Crimea with the goal of getting an audience with Gorbachev, explaining themselves and receiving forgiveness, but Gorbachev did not accept them.

Members of the State Emergency Committee were arrested (Pugo committed suicide). On the same day, the President of the RSFSR expressed gratitude to the citizens of Russia for the support of the Russian leadership in repelling the “reactionary group of high-ranking putschists.” Returning from Foros, the President of the USSR on Central Television noted “the outstanding role of the President of Russia, who became the center of resistance to conspiracy and dictatorship.”

The rapid increase in the processes of disintegration is pushing the leadership of the USSR, led by Mikhail Gorbachev, to the following actions:

Conducting an all-Union referendum, in which the majority of voters spoke in favor of preserving the USSR;

The establishment of the post of President of the USSR in connection with the prospect of the CPSU losing power;

A project to create a new Union Treaty, in which the rights of the republics were significantly expanded.

12 June 1990 The Supreme Council of the RSFSR adopted the Declaration of State Sovereignty, establishing the priority of its laws over those of the All-Union. From that moment on, the process of the collapse of the USSR entered an active phase; All-Union authorities began to lose control over the country; The “parade of sovereignties” intensified.

January 12 1991 Yeltsin signs an agreement with Estonia on the fundamentals of interstate relations, in which RSFSR And Estonia recognize each other as sovereign states.

As Chairman of the Supreme Council, Yeltsin was able to achieve the establishment of the post of President of the RSFSR, and 12 June 1991 won the popular election for this position.

Collapse of the USSR in dates

1990 year:

1991 year:

12 December - RSFSR(in fact, a resolution on the denunciation of the Union Treaty)

None of the republics followed all the procedures prescribed by the USSR law dated April 3 1990 "On the procedure for resolving issues related to the secession of a union republic from the USSR." State Council of the USSR(created September 5 1991 a body consisting of the heads of the union republics chaired by the President of the USSR) formally recognized the independence of only three Baltic republics ( 6 September 1991 , resolutions of the USSR State Council No. GS-1, GS-2, GS-3). November 4 V. I. Ilyukhin opened a criminal case against Gorbachev under Article 64 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR ( treason) in connection with these decisions of the State Council. According to Ilyukhin, Gorbachev, by signing them, violated his oath and Constitution of the USSR and caused damage to the territorial integrity and state security of the USSR. After this, Ilyukhin was fired from the USSR Prosecutor's Office.

Signing of the Belovezhskaya Accords. Founding of the CIS

December 8 1991 Presidents of 3 republics - Belarus, Russia And Ukraine- on meeting in Belovezhskaya Pushcha ( Belarus) stated that the USSR was ceasing to exist, declared the impossibility of forming the GCC and signed Establishment Agreement Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). The signing of the agreements caused a negative reaction from Gorbachev, but at that time he no longer had real power. As B.N. Yeltsin later emphasized, the Belovezhskaya Agreements did not dissolve the USSR, but only stated its actual collapse by that time.

December 11th Committee for Constitutional Supervision of the USSR issued a statement condemning the Bialowieza Agreement. This statement had no practical consequences.

12 December The Supreme Council of the RSFSR, chaired by R. I. Khasbulatova ratified the Belovezhskaya agreements and decided to denounce the RSFSR union treaty 1922 and on the recall of Russian deputies from the Supreme Soviet of the USSR

December 16 The last republic of the USSR - Kazakhstan - declared its independence. Thus, in the last 10 days of its existence, the USSR, which had not yet been legally abolished, was actually a state without territory.

21 December 1991 year at the meeting of presidents in Almaty, Kazakhstan 8 more republics joined the CIS: Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, the so-called Almaty Agreement, which became the basis of the CIS.

The CIS was founded not as a confederation, but as international (interstate) organization, which is characterized by weak integration and a lack of real power among coordinating supranational bodies.

Authorities of the USSR and the USSR as subject of international law ceased to exist on December 25-26 1991 . Russia announced herself successor membership of the USSR (and not a legal successor, as is often erroneously indicated) in international institutions, assumed the debts of the USSR and declared itself the owner of all property of the USSR abroad.

December 25 USSR President M. S. Gorbachev announced the termination of his activities as President of the USSR “for reasons of principle,” signed a decree resigning from the powers of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Soviet Armed Forces and transferred control of the strategic nuclear weapons To the President of Russia B. Yeltsin.

Russia in the 1990sXXcentury. Gaidar's reforms. Yeltsin's economic policy.

Russia is undergoing a transition from Soviet political and economic systems to democracy And market economy. In this regard, political and economic ties with Western countries have improved, and “ cold war».

At the same time, as a result of the collapse of the USSR, many existing production chains were destroyed, which was a serious blow to the Russian economy. The territory of the newly independent states contained the majority of ice-free ports, a significant part of the merchant fleet, large sections of the former allied pipelines, and a significant number of high-tech enterprises (including nuclear power plants) built at the expense of the allied center.

Since the early 1990s, the country has experienced a natural population decline (see. Demographic situation in Russia).

In progress privatization in the mid-90s there was a strong stratification of society. Thus, the differences in income between the richest 20% and the poorest 20% of Russians changed from 3.3 times in the 1980s to 8.1-8.5 in 1995-2004, and funds ratio V 2004 reached 14.8 . The transfer of large state-owned enterprises into private hands was often determined not by economic, but by political considerations of reformers and was carried out at greatly reduced prices.

The weakening of the functions of the state led to large-scale illegal export of capital from the country and a budget deficit. The economy suffered from financial speculation and the depreciation of the ruble, which was replaced by the dollar. High taxes led to a deterioration in their collection from enterprises. Due to a lack of funds, social obligations were not fulfilled, funding for free education and healthcare, science and culture fell sharply, and external debt increased. The crisis of non-payments and the replacement of cash payments barter worsened the general condition of the economy. IN 1991 -1998 GDP and industrial production fell by more than 40%, the standard of living of most of the population fell sharply.

Gaidar's reforms and Yeltsin's economic policy

December 1991 - decree on freedom of trade

January 1992 - price liberalization, hyperinflation, the beginning of voucher privatization

July-September 1993 - falling inflation rates, abolition of the USSR ruble (monetary reform).

With August 17 1998 - economic crisis, threat of default, fourfold collapse of the ruble exchange rate

After the collapse of the USSR, due to the destruction of many existing production chains and economic ties, the production-oriented economy means of production, military products and export of resources turned out to be unviable, and the government resorted to radical reforms. The territory of the former republics of the USSR contained the majority of ice-free ports, large sections of former Soviet pipelines, a significant number of high-tech enterprises (including NPP).

At the beginning of 1992, radical economic reform began to be carried out in the country, in particular, on January 2, the presidential decree on price liberalization. Already in the first months of the year, the market began to fill with consumer goods, but the monetary policy of issuing money (including in the former Soviet republics) led to hyperinflation: a sharp decline in real wages and pensions, a depreciation of bank savings, and a sharp drop in living standards.

The economy, out of government control, suffered from financial speculation and the depreciation of the ruble against hard currency. The crisis of non-payments and the replacement of cash payments with barter worsened the general condition of the country's economy. The results of the reforms became evident by the mid-1990s. On the one hand, a multi-structured market economy began to take shape in Russia, political and economic ties with Western countries improved, and the protection of human rights and freedoms was proclaimed as a priority of state policy. But in 1991-1995, GDP and industrial production fell by more than 20% , the standard of living of the majority of the population declined sharply, and the middle class made up 15-20% of the population by 1997-1998. [ source? ]

A number of the largest raw materials enterprises were privatized at loans-for-shares auctions and passed into the hands of new owners at prices many times lower than their real value. One hundred and forty-five thousand state-owned enterprises were transferred to new owners at tens of thousands of times lower total costs of only about one billion dollars. While now the capitalization of Gazprom ONE is $265 billion. At the same time, a number of studies (including those conducted by the Higher School of Economics) showed an increase in the efficiency of some privatized enterprises compared to state-owned enterprises. [ source? ]

As a result of privatization in Russia, a class of so-called “ oligarchs" At the same time, a colossal number of people have emerged living below the poverty level.

IN 1992 There is a sudden increase in mortality caused by the impoverishment of the population and the collapse of the social sphere. From this time on, a constant population decline began. [ source? ]

Russia's huge public debt, low world prices for raw materials, which formed the basis of Russia's exports, as well as the populist economic policy of the state and the construction of GKO pyramids (state short-term bonds) led to defaulted August 1998.

Under the influence of hyperinflation, there was a deep deformation of all cost proportions and the ratio of prices for products of individual industries, which changed the cost bases of the financial, budgetary and monetary systems. The consumer price index increased 1,187 times from 1992 to 1995, and nominal wages increased 616 times. Tariffs for freight transportation increased 9.3 thousand times over those years, and the price index for sales of agricultural products by producers increased only 780 times, 4.5 times less than in industry. The disequilibrium of income and expenses has reached such a level over the years of transformation that the mechanism of non-payments has ceased to cope with its balancing. (Babashkina A. M. State regulation of the national economy: Textbook. - M: Finance and Statistics, 2005.)

The structure of industrial production has also changed over the years of transformation. There has been a decline in knowledge-intensive industries, technical degradation of the economy, and the curtailment of modern technologies. [ source? ] The decline in production in Russia, in its scale and duration, significantly exceeded all peacetime crises known in history. In mechanical engineering, industrial construction, light industry, food industry and many other important industries, production decreased by 4-5 times, expenses on scientific research and design development - by 10 times, and in certain areas - by 15-20 times. [ source? ] The main source of export income was raw materials. The share of the service sector has increased, but the share of personal services has decreased, and the share of services in the circulation sector has increased. [ source? ] Export of raw materials made it possible to finance priority budgetary needs, but foreign economic relations acted more as a current market stabilizer of the economy, rather than a mechanism for increasing competitiveness. Foreign loans received by Russia for transformation and stabilization of the economy were an important means of balancing the budget. [ source? ]

During the transition to a market economy, a labor market appeared and unemployment increased. According to the methodology of the International Labor Organization ( ILO), at the beginning of 2003, 7.1% of the economically active population were unemployed (excluding hidden unemployment). The gap between the minimum and maximum unemployment levels by region was 36 times.

At the end of 1998 and beginning of 1999, a trend toward economic growth emerged. After the devaluation of August 1998, the competitiveness of imports was sharply reduced, which increased the demand for domestic goods from the food industry and other industries. The most important factor in economic growth was the increase in production volumes at all enterprises of the fuel and energy complex, where they sought to compensate for losses from falling prices on world markets - exports in value decreased during 1998, while in physical volumes they increased.

Liberalization of pricing eliminated the problems of commodity shortages of the late 90s, but caused a decline in the living standards of the majority of the population and hyperinflation (liquidation of savings).

A number of economists believe that the reason for the economic recovery in Russia (and other countries of the former USSR) since 1999 is, first of all, the transition from a planned to a market economy, carried out in the 1990s .

In previous years in the economy Russia(and earlier - USSR) regulated state prices were used for the vast majority of goods (works, services) produced. At the end of 1991, the political crisis led to a loss of control over the growth of the money supply in the economy, and the ongoing production decline led to a reduction in the volume of commodity supply. An approximately threefold ratio of these values ​​(under conditions of fixed prices) indicated a threatening economic disequilibrium. This began to manifest itself in a growing shortage of goods, especially food in large cities. It has become obvious to most experts that a transition of the country’s economy to a market economy is necessary, which will require the abandonment of state regulation in the field pricing. It was intended to transfer pricing functions directly to business entities that set prices under the influence of competition, based on existing supply and demand.

Radical liberalization of consumer prices was implemented January 2 1992 g., as a result of which 90% of retail prices and 80% of wholesale prices were exempted from government regulation. At the same time, control over the price level for a number of socially significant consumer goods and services (bread, milk, public transport) was left to the state (and for some of them it still remains). At first, markups on such goods were limited, but in March 1992 it became possible to cancel these restrictions, which most regions took advantage of. In addition to price liberalization, starting in January 1992, a number of other important economic reforms were implemented, in particular, wage liberalization, freedom of retail trade, etc.

Initially, the prospects for price liberalization raised serious doubts because the ability of market forces to determine prices for goods was limited by a number of factors. First of all, price liberalization began before privatization, so that the economy was predominantly owned by the state . Second, the reforms were initiated at the federal level, while price controls had traditionally been exercised at the local level, and in some cases local authorities chose to retain these controls directly, despite the government's refusal to provide subsidies to such regions. In January 1995, prices for about 30% of goods continued to be regulated in one way or another. For example, the authorities put pressure on privatized shops, taking advantage of the fact that land, real estate and utilities were still in the hands of the state. Local authorities also created barriers to trade, for example by prohibiting the export of food to other areas. Third, powerful criminal groups emerged that blocked access to existing markets and collected tribute through racketeering, thereby distorting market pricing mechanisms. Fourth, poor communications and high transportation costs complicated the ability of companies and individuals to respond effectively to market signals. Despite these difficulties, in practice market forces began to play a significant role in pricing, and imbalances in the economy began to decrease .

Price liberalization has become one of the most important steps towards the transition of the country's economy to market principles. Thanks to liberalization, the country's stores were filled with goods in a fairly short time, their range and quality increased, and the main prerequisites were created for the formation of market economic mechanisms in society. The subject of sharp criticism is that the reforms were carried out without a broad public debate in which supporters of alternative approaches would participate. Arguments are put forward that price liberalization should have been preceded by privatization, which, in turn, should have been preceded by institutional reforms: first of all, ensuring rule of law and legislative protection of private property. It is argued that the presence of a viable private sector (at least small businesses) would lead to its growth after price liberalization, which would soften the effect of falling production (“Vietnamese experience”).

Privatization

In November 1991, the stage of forced privatization began. It was based on Decree No. 341 of the President of the Russian Federation dated December 29, 1991, which approved the “Basic provisions of the privatization program for state and municipal enterprises for 1992.” Decree No.66 of 29/1/1992 “On accelerating the privatization of state and municipal enterprises” determined the practical mechanism of privatization. The State Privatization Program for 1992 was adopted by the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation in June 1992. She proclaimed the following goals:

increasing the efficiency of enterprises through their privatization;

creating a competitive environment and promoting demonopolization of the national economy;

attracting foreign investment, social protection of the population and development of social infrastructure using funds received from privatization;

assistance in the process of financial stabilization of the Russian Federation;

creation of conditions and organizational structures for expanding the scale of privatization in 1993-1994.

Voucher privatization was carried out in 1992-1994. It was preceded by legislative acts of the Supreme Council RSFSR, adopted in the summer of 1991, which provided for the buyout of state-owned enterprises and their transformation into joint-stock companies. To streamline privatization, the law “On personal privatization accounts and deposits in the RSFSR” was adopted, according to which every citizen of Russia received a personal privatization account, into which sums of money intended to pay for privatized state property were to be credited. The law did not allow the sale of privatization deposits to other persons. This law, however, was not implemented and voucher privatization was carried out instead.

The practical guide to privatization was the Decree of the President of the Russian Federation “On accelerating the privatization of state and municipal enterprises” ( December 29th 1991 g.), “On accelerating the privatization of state and municipal enterprises” ( January 29 1992 g.), “On organizational measures for the transformation of state enterprises, voluntary associations of state enterprises into joint-stock companies” ( July 1 1992), “On the implementation of the system of privatization checks in the Russian Federation” ( August 14 1992), “On the State Program for the Privatization of State and Municipal Enterprises in the Russian Federation” ( December 24 1993 G.).

Voucher privatization was controversial, since its slogans (creating an effective owner, increasing the efficiency of enterprises, creating a socially oriented market economy) were at odds with practice. According to economists, practice has triumphed over ideology. Participants in privatization did not have equal rights. Thus, employees of enterprises were provided with benefits when purchasing shares of these enterprises, but citizens not engaged in production (medical workers, scientists, teachers) did not have such benefits.

In the summer of 1992, they introduced vouchers(privatization checks), which were distributed free of charge to the population. The nominal value of the voucher was 10 thousand rubles. The property of the country's enterprises was valued at 1,400 billion rubles, and vouchers were issued for this amount. According to the head of the State Property Committee, Chubais, who led the privatization, one voucher could buy two Volga cars (the actual cost of the voucher varied depending on the specific situation).

Loans-for-shares auctions

Loans-for-shares auctions were held to replenish the state budget. As a result of these auctions, state property was transferred into the hands of oligarchs at an unprecedented low price.

Loans-for-shares auctions were undertaken in 1995 year in order to replenish the state treasury. The government planned to raise money by privatizing some state-owned enterprises. The idea of ​​auctions to replenish the budget was put forward by Vladimir Potanin, head of ONEXIM Bank. The initiative was supported by Anatoly Chubais, who was Deputy Prime Minister at that time. The head of the State Property Committee supervised the auctions Alfred Koch.

A number of major companies were put up for sale. Auctions were called collateral auctions, since, unlike regular auctions, companies were not sold, but were given as collateral. However, they were not bought back. According to most experts, extremely low prices were set. Competition at auctions was very low. This happened because many potential buyers were not allowed to visit them. In many cases, the competition involved several firms owned by the same person or group of people. Moreover, state-owned enterprises were often purchased not with their own money, but with money borrowed from the state.

As a result of loans-for-shares auctions, billionaire oligarchs emerged ( Berezovsky, Khodorkovsky, Abramovich and others).

Russia in the 1990sXX century. Political transformations. Yeltsin and the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation, events of September-October 1993. Elections to the State Duma of 1993. Elections to the State Duma of 1995 and presidential elections of 1996. Yeltsin’s resignation.

The status of the Russian Federation itself as renewed federations was issued Federal Treaty, which is concluded March 31 1992 central government and almost all subjects (except Tatarstan And Chechnya) and turned on April 10th 1992 V Constitution of Russia.

Dissolution of the Soviets

Political crisisSeptember 21 - The 4th of October 1993 - events that led to the final dismantling of the Soviet system of power and the formation of the modern political structure of the Russian Federation. It was a consequence of the confrontation between two political forces: on the one hand - president RF Boris Yeltsin, the executive power controlled by him and his supporters, and on the other hand - vice president Alexandra Rutskogo, Supreme Council of the Russian Federation headed by Ruslan Khasbulatov, Congress of People's Deputies of the Russian Federation, and their supporters. Opinions about the position Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation With V. D. Zorkin at the head, they disagree: according to the judges themselves and supporters of the Supreme Court, he maintained neutrality; in the opinion of the President, he participated on the side of the Armed Forces.

At least 150 people died during armed clashes in the center of Moscow.

In conditions when Russian Constitution, according to supporters of Russian President Boris Yeltsin, became a hindrance in carrying out reforms, and work on the new edition was carried out too slowly and ineffectively, the president issued decree No. 1400 “On phased constitutional reform in the Russian Federation,” which prescribed Supreme Council of the Russian Federation And Congress of People's Deputies(according to the Constitution, the highest body of state power of the Russian Federation) cease its activities.

Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, having gathered for an emergency meeting, came to the conclusion that this decree violates the Russian Constitution in twelve places and, according to the Constitution, is the basis for the removal of President Yeltsin from office. The Supreme Council refused to obey the unconstitutional decree of the president and qualified his actions as a coup d'etat. It was decided to convene the X Extraordinary Congress of People's Deputies. Police units subordinate to Yeltsin and Luzhkov, an order was given to blockade the White House.

The defense of the White House was led by vice president Alexander Vladimirovich Rutskoy and Chairman of the Supreme Council Ruslan Imranovich Khasbulatov. After numerous attacks by units Riot police at demonstrators on Smolenskaya Square , near the Kuznetsky Bridge, other streets of Moscow, supporters of the Supreme Council (spontaneously gathered residents Moscow, And Moscow region, other cities of the Russian Federation, as well as countries of the post-Soviet space) broke through the blockade of riot police, took control of one of the city hall buildings (the former building Comecon, from whose windows demonstrations were fired upon ), and then attempted to enter one of the buildings television center Ostankino(possibly with the aim of getting aired on Central Television). The storming of the city hall building took place without casualties, but near the television center, fighters from formations loyal to the president opened fire on the stormers and demonstrators.

The 4th of October As a result of the assault and tank shelling, the White House was taken under control by troops loyal to Yeltsin.

Background

Introduction of the post President while maintaining virtually unlimited powers Congress of People's Deputies of the Russian Federation And Supreme Council of the Russian Federation created a problem in Russia dual power which was complicated by the split of society into supporters of immediate radical economic reforms (“ shock therapy"), who united around the president Boris Yeltsin, and opponents of excessive haste, thoughtlessness and abuse in carrying out reforms, united around the Supreme Council, the chairman of which, after Yeltsin was elected president, was Ruslan Khasbulatov.

20th of March 1993 Yeltsin made a televised address to the people, in which he announced that he had just signed a decree introducing a “special management order.” The Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation, without yet having a signed presidential decree, recognized his actions related to the televised address as unconstitutional and found that there were grounds for removing the president from office. However, as it turned out a little later, the unconstitutional decree was not actually signed. The convened IX (Extraordinary) Congress of People's Deputies attempted to remove the president from office (at the same time, a vote was held on the issue of dismissing the Chairman of the Supreme Council R.I. Khasbulatov), ​​but 72 votes were not enough for impeachment.

March 29 1993, after the failure of the impeachment attempt, Congress appointed 25th of April referendum with 4 questions. The positions of the President and the Supreme Council differed radically on all these issues. The conflicting results of the referendum were interpreted by the president and his entourage in their favor.

Do you trust the President of the Russian FederationB. N. Yeltsin ? (58.7% for)

Do you approve of the socio-economic policy pursued by the President of the Russian Federation and the Government of the Russian Federation since 1992? (53.0% for)

Do you consider it necessary to hold early elections of the President of the Russian Federation? (49.5% for)

Do you consider it necessary to hold early elections of people's deputies of the Russian Federation? (67.2% for)

The referendum became widely known as “yes-yes-no-yes”, because this is how Yeltsin’s supporters’ propaganda materials distributed on radio and TV called for voting.

Adoption of the New Constitution

In Russia, the entire structure of Soviet power was liquidated, the “dual power” ended. During the transition period, the regime of personal power of B. N. Yeltsin was established in Russia. The activities of the Constitutional Court were suspended. Yeltsin, by his decrees, abolished the norms of the current Constitution and legislation. 12 December In 1993, a referendum was held to adopt a new Constitution, according to which Russia established presidential republic with bicameral parliament. Parties and organizations whose members took part in clashes on the side of the Supreme Council were excluded from participation in the elections, as participants in an armed rebellion.

State Duma elections 1993

23 September 1993- President B. N. Yeltsin announces early presidential elections in June 1994(this decision was later reversed). There was an attack on the headquarters of the united armed forces of the CIS, two were killed. The media and supporters of the president blame the deputies of the Supreme Council for the incident. The X (Extraordinary) Congress of People's Deputies opens, which, in compliance with all legal procedures and in the presence of the necessary quorum, approves the resolutions of the Supreme Court on the termination of Yeltsin's presidential powers and their transfer to Vice President Rutskoi, and qualifies Yeltsin's actions as an attempt "coup d'etat".

September 30th 1993- The President forms the Central Election Commission for elections to the State Duma and appoints it as its chairman N. T. Ryabova.

The State Duma Russia of the 1st convocation. Sat with January 11 1994 By January 15 1996 .

Activities of the Duma: elected for 2 years in December 1993, by new constitution. The LDPR's first place in party list elections was unexpected. New Duma headed by an agrarian Ivan Rybkin.

It was politically unstable, since no party had a constitutional majority. The composition of factions in the State Duma was constantly changing. In July 1995 The State Duma expressed no confidence in the government.

Left factions: Communist Party of the Russian Federation, APR

Center: ZhR, PRESS, DPR, IRP, Russia and Stability

Radicals: LDPR, Russian way, Power

Others: (NK (MMM family) - Mavrodi), (Duma 96 - Bauer + 1 department)

State Duma elections 1995

Elected: December 17 1995 for four years of the year. Expiration date - January 17 2000 of the year. Meeting: With January 15 1996 By December 24 1999 of the year. Chairman: Seleznev, Gennady Nikolaevich(With January 16 1996 ).

Over four years of work, deputies adopted 1036 federal laws(715 of them have now gained legal force) and ratified by 212 laws, bilateral contracts and agreements international conventions. In total, the deputies of this composition reviewed 1,730 bills.

Legislative activity was distinguished by attention to foreign policy and social affairs. The State Duma also adopted five federal constitutional laws: "ABOUT judicial system of the Russian Federation", "ABOUT Government of the Russian Federation", "About Commissioner for Human Rights in the Russian Federation", "ABOUT military courts Russian Federation". In addition, deputies of the Duma of the second convocation adopted Budget Code of the Russian Federation, part II Civil and part I Tax codes.

In August 1996 approved by the Prime Minister Victor Chernomyrdin, in April 1998 Sergey Kiriyenko, October 1998 Evgeny Primakov, May 1999 Sergey Stepashin, August 1999 Vladimir Putin.

The elections were held using a mixed system. 993 foreign observers from 61 countries were registered for the elections. Of these, more than 434 are from member countries OSCE. Ambassador European Union V Moscow Michael Emerson noted that members of the observation mission assessed the elections as “free and fair.”

Presidential elections 1996

Russian presidential elections were assigned to June 16 1996 in accordance with the transitional provisions of the Constitution of Russia and in connection with the expiration of the term of office of the President of Russia B. N. Yeltsin, elected to 1991. The only presidential election in Russia where two rounds were required to determine the winner. The elections took place on June 16 and 3 July 1996 and were distinguished by the intensity of the political struggle between the candidates.

The main competitors were considered the current President of Russia B. N. Yeltsin and the leader of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation G. A. Zyuganov. According to the results of the second round, Boris Yeltsin received more than 50 percent of the votes and was re-elected for a second term.

The elections were called by a decision of the Federation Council in December 1995, a few days before the completion of elections to the State Duma of the second convocation. According to the results of the elections to the State Duma, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (22 percent) took first place, the LDPR took second (12 percent), and the Our Home - Russia movement, supported by the President, took only third place (10 percent). By that time, Russian President Yeltsin had lost his former popularity due to the failures of economic reforms, failures during the Chechen war and corruption scandals in his circle; ratings showed his popularity at the level of 3-6 percent.

Closer to the New Year, signature campaigns for Yeltsin and then other candidates began. The law in force at that time required the collection of a million signatures in support of each candidate, but allowed the collection of signatures in support of a candidate without his consent. About 10 initiative groups were formed in support of B.N. Yeltsin. B. N. Yeltsin did not agree to the nomination for a long time; he announced his positive decision only February, 15. On the same day, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation nominated its leader G. A. Zyuganov as a candidate for President of Russia. At the time of the nomination of both candidates, Zyuganov was significantly ahead of Yeltsin in ratings, but the gap between them was gradually narrowing. Later, other candidates for the post of President of Russia were nominated.

In the Russian Presidential elections on June 16, despite the height of summer, Russians showed high activity. More than 75.7 million Russians took part in the elections, which amounted to 69.81 percent of the number of voters on the lists. More than 800 thousand voters cast ballots using absentee ballots.

According to the results of the first round, the current President of Russia B. N. Yeltsin showed the best result, receiving 26.6 million votes, which amounted to 35.28 percent. The leader of the Russian communists G. A. Zyuganov received 24.2 million votes, which amounted to 32.03 percent, slightly behind Yeltsin. The main surprise was the third place of A.I. Lebed, who received the support of 10.7 million voters, which amounted to 14.52 percent. Former USSR President M.S. Gorbachev suffered a serious defeat, receiving only 386 thousand votes, which amounted to 0.51 percent. B. N. Yeltsin and G. A. Zyuganov entered the second round.

B. N. Yeltsin was supported mainly by the population of Moscow and St. Petersburg, large industrial cities, the North of Russia, Siberia, the Far East, some national republics, as well as Russians living abroad. G. A. Zyuganov was supported mainly by residents of the depressed rural regions of Central Russia, the Black Earth Region, the Volga region and some republics of the North Caucasus.

After determining the results of the first round of voting Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation scheduled the second round of voting for Wednesday, July 3, the Russian Government declared this day a day off. B. N. Yeltsin and G. A. Zyuganov were included in the ballot for the re-vote. This unusual choice of voting day is explained by the desire to increase voter turnout.

After the first round of voting, the situation became extremely aggravated: supporters of the current government and opponents of the communists, who did not want the restoration of Soviet power, united around B. N. Yeltsin, supporters of the communists and opponents of the current government - around G. A. Zyuganov. Political scientists' forecasts gave preference to Yeltsin, but noted that he had a high chance of being elected given a high voter turnout. It was believed that there were more potential Yeltsin supporters, but they were less politically active, while there were fewer potential Zyuganov supporters, but they were more disciplined and politically active.

According to the election results, the current President of Russia B. N. Yeltsin received 40.2 million votes (53.82 percent), significantly ahead of G. A. Zyuganov, who received 30.1 million votes (40.31 percent). 3.6 million Russians (4.82 percent) voted against both candidates B. N. Yeltsin managed to increase the lead or reduce the gap with G. A. Zyuganov in all regions without exception.

According to the results of the second round of elections, the current President of Russia B.N. Yeltsin won and was re-elected for a second term.

Yeltsin's resignation

31th of December 1999 at 12 noon (which was repeated on the main television channels a few minutes before midnight, before the New Year's televised address), B. N. Yeltsin announced his resignation from the post of President of the Russian Federation:

Dear friends! My dears! Today I address you for the last time with New Year's greetings. But that's not all. Today I am addressing you for the last time as President of Russia. I made a decision. I thought about it long and painfully. Today, on the last day of the passing century, I resign.

Yeltsin explained that he was leaving “not for health reasons, but for the totality of all problems,” and asked for forgiveness from Russian citizens. Having finished reading the last sentence, he sat motionless for several more minutes, and tears poured down his face, recalls TV cameraman A. Makarov.

Chairman of the Government V.V. Putin was appointed acting President, who immediately after B.N. Yeltsin’s announcement of his own resignation addressed a New Year’s address to the citizens of Russia. On the same day, V.V. Putin signed a decree guaranteeing Yeltsin protection from prosecution, as well as significant material benefits for him and his family.

Russian foreign policy in 1991-1999.

April 2 1997 Russia and Belarus entered into Union(c December 8 1999 - Union State of Russia and Belarus).

The beginning of international relations between Russia and Belarus as independent states can be considered the signing Belovezhskaya Accords and education CIS after the breakup USSR V 1991 year. the 13th of November 1992 The Free Trade Agreement was signed.

Alexander Lukashenko began to actively play out this theme during his first presidential elections in July 1994 of the year. Having become head of state, he used it for political and economic bargaining with Moscow.

6th January 1995 an agreement on the Customs Union was signed, February 21 1995 - Treaty of Friendship, Good Neighborhood and Cooperation for a period of 10 years.

April 2 1996 President of Russia Boris Yeltsin And President of Belarus Alexander Lukashenko signed an agreement on the creation of the Community of Russia and Belarus. At that moment, this was beneficial for both Yeltsin, who was expecting presidential elections in two months, and Lukashenko, who hoped to lead the union state.

Boris Yeltsin, who did not have full support State Duma, refused to sign the Belarusian version of the union treaty. The document that was signed April 2 1997, - the new treaty transforming the Community into a Union - did not contain specific obligations. This gave Alexander Lukashenko the opportunity to accuse the Russian leadership of not being ready for unification.

Relationships between Moscow And Minsk worsened. In summer 1997 A political scandal erupted, which began with the detention of Russian journalists in Belarus on charges of illegal border crossing. In order to achieve their release, Russia resorted to political and economic pressure. After this, talk about unification died down for a long time. It has become a peculiar tradition in Russia to entrust the resolution of issues of unification of Russia and Belarus to leaders who, by their own or someone else’s will, left active political life.

December 25 1998 The Declaration on the further unification of Russia and Belarus (providing for the introduction of a single currency), an agreement on equal rights of citizens and an Agreement on the creation of equal conditions for business entities were signed. Just before Yeltsin left office, December 8 1999, The Treaty on the creation of the Union State was finally signed. The parties pledged to intensify the preparation of a single Constitutional Act and submit it for public discussion. The agreement came into force January 26 2000 . In January 2000, he was elected Secretary of State of the Union Pavel Borodin.

Chechnya

On the territory of Russia there arose separatist trends that threaten, following the collapse of the USSR, the collapse of the Russian Federation. In the announced in 1991 independence Chechnya (Ichkeria) they developed into bloody wars (see. Chechen conflict). Tatarstan according to its legislation and de facto was also independent from 1990 before the conclusion of the Agreement on mutual delegation of powers in 1994 , and after the conclusion of the contract until 2000 - associated state With confederal status.

1991 - self-proclaimed Chechen Republic(later the Chechen Republic Ichkeria, separation from Ingushetia. The president Dzhokhar Dudayev (1991 -1996 ) is heading towards actual independence from Russia and discrimination against Russians.

December 1994 - Start First Chechen war, during which RF trying to regain control in Chechnya. TO 1996 year a pro-Russian government is created headed by Doku Zavgaev, Dudayev was killed in May. However, in August 1996 separatist forces take over Grozny And Gudermes, signed with them Khasavyurt agreements, federal troops are withdrawn from the territory of Ichkeria and de facto independence is restored.

1997 - elected president of Ichkeria Aslan Maskhadov. Conflicts begin between separatist field commanders - Interwar crisis in Chechnya.

1999 -2000 - after the invasion of Ichkeria troops into Dagestan begins Second Chechen War, federal forces regained control over most of the territory of Chechnya, and its head was appointed Akhmat Kadyrov.

General directions of foreign policy

International community recognized Russia continuation state USSR. This means that, with international legal point of view, Russia and the USSR are one and the same state (in contrast to the concept of “ successor", implying the replacement of one state by another). Thanks to this, Russia continued to implement all international rights and fulfill the international obligations of the USSR. Among them, the status of permanent member is especially important Security Council UN, membership in other international organizations, rights and obligations under international treaties, property and debts.

Russia is one of the key participants in international relations. As one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, it has special responsibility for maintaining international peace and security. Russia is included in "Group of Eight" industrialized countries and is a member of many international organizations, including Council of Europe And OSCE. A special place is occupied by organizations created in the space of the former USSR, mainly with the leading role of Russia - CIS, EurAsEC, CSTO, SCO. Russia together with Belarus constitute the so-called Union State.

Russia is pursuing a multi-vector foreign policy. She supports diplomatic relations with 178 countries, has 140 embassies. Russia's foreign policy is determined president of the country and is carried out Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

--

The idea of ​​creating a strategic triangle Russia - India - China was the first famous political figure to put forward back in 1998 Russian Prime Minister Evgeny Primakov. Unable to stop the operation being prepared NATO against Yugoslavia, Primakov called for cooperation between the three countries as a kind of counteraction unipolarity in the world. However, it took several years for this proposal to be supported by diplomats.

The first trilateral meetings in this format took place in New York during the sessions UN General Assembly V 2002 And 2003 , and in 2004 - V Almaty during the Conference on Interaction and Confidence Building Measures in Asia. In June 2005 the meeting of the foreign ministers of Russia, China and India took place for the first time on the territory of one of the three states of the “triangle” - in Vladivostok.

The interaction of three states, the total population of which is 40% of the world's population, allows us to increase the international weight of each of them. Judging by the statements of the leaders of the three countries, their cooperation is not directed against anyone, but at the same time it is intended to make the world multipolar and contribute to the democratization of the world order.

Each of the states, apparently, pursues, in addition to common interests, also individual interests:

India and China expect to gain access to Russian energy resources - oil And gas;

Russia emphasizes the importance of practical cooperation in the fight against international terrorism, drug trafficking and other new threats (especially in the area adjacent to the territory of all three countries - in Central Asia, since the possible strengthening of Islamic extremism in this region can hit each of the three states);

India looks forward to support in its bid to become a permanent member UN Security Council; Russia and China agree the UN needs reform; It is expected that by the September UN session the three states will come up with joint proposals.

India is seeking to enter Shanghai Cooperation Organization(SCO) and play a more active role in Central Asia.

Cooperation within the “triangle” has already made it possible to begin the process of normalizing relations between China and India and resolving border problems. Fully settled border issues between China and Russia (see above).

Observers point out that the partnership of the three states has not yet been formalized organizationally and, perhaps, will not take clear international legal forms, since this would mean the formation of an alternative USA center of power in Asia and would inevitably cause their negative reaction.

Currently, none of the three states would like this, for various reasons. In particular, Russia views the United States as a partner in the fight against proliferation nuclear weapons and for maintaining strategic stability in the world, and therefore, despite the activation of the United States in post-Soviet space Russia refuses to openly oppose this.

The most acute problem in relations between Russia and the Baltic countries is recognition or non-recognition of a fact annexation And occupation Soviet Union of the Baltic states in 1940 -1991 .

Related to the issue of “annexation” and “occupation” are questions about the conclusion of border treaties between Russia, Estonia and Latvia, as well as the situation of the Russian-speaking minority in these countries, including the lack of progress in the field of naturalization(according to Russian data, 450-480 thousand residents of Latvia and 160 thousand residents of Estonia are still classified as stateless persons), restrictions on the use Russian language, infringement of the rights of military pensioners], persecution of anti-fascist veterans and former employees of Soviet law enforcement agencies and at the same time glorification of “fighters for independence from the USSR,” whom Russian authorities call “Nazi collaborators.” Only Lithuania accepted the so-called “zero option,” automatically granting its citizenship to all USSR citizens living on its territory at the time of declaration of independence.

Russia is dissatisfied with the demands of the Baltic countries to apologize for the “Soviet occupation” and compensate for damages for it. Russian authorities also accuse them of provoking European Union And NATO to take a tougher course towards Russia.

Of the Baltic states, Russia has territorial disputes with Latvia(Pytalovsky district Pskov region- county Abrene) And Estonia(Pechorsky district Pskov region and the right bank of the river Narva With Ivangorod).

After the collapse of the USSR, the Russian Federation inherited Soviet-Japanese relations. As before, the main problem standing in the way of the full development of relations between both sides remains the dispute over the ownership of the Kuril Islands, which is preventing the signing of a peace treaty.

Government Boris Yeltsin, who came to power in 1991 , continued to take a strong position regarding Russian sovereignty over the Kuril Islands and rejected their return to Japan. Despite some technical and financial assistance from Japan, which included Big Seven, relations between the two countries remained at a low level. In September 1992 Russian President Boris Yeltsin postponed his planned visit to Japan and did not make it until October 1993 . He did not make any new proposals, but confirmed Russia's readiness to follow the Soviet proposal of 1956 to transfer the island to Japan Shikotan and group Habomai in exchange for signing a peace treaty. Yeltsin also apologized to Japan for the mistreatment of Japanese prisoners of war after the end of World War II. In March 1994 Japanese Foreign Minister visited Moscow Huta Tsutomu and met with Russian colleagues Andrey Kozyrev.

Domestic and foreign policy of the Russian Federation 2000-2007. Presidential elections 2000. New trends in Russian society under President V.V. Putin. Transformations in the state system and economy.

Early electionPresident of the Russian Federation 26 March 2000 were appointed Federation Council 5 January 2000 due to resignation B. N. Yeltsin 31th of December 1999(they were originally supposed to take place in July 2000).

According to political scientists, sociological services and the media, the greatest chance of winning was V.V. Putin, appointed in 1999 Chairman of the Government and acting President. The main intrigue was whether Putin would win in the first round or whether a second round (re-vote) would be necessary.

Simultaneously with the elections of the President of Russia, elections were held for the heads of four subjects of the Russian Federation - Altai Territory, Murmansk region, Jewish Autonomous Region, Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug.

12 candidates were registered Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation:

Govorukhin Stanislav Sergeevich

Dzhabrailov Umar Alievich

Zhirinovsky Vladimir Volfovich

Zyuganov Gennady Andreevich

Pamfilova Ella Alexandrovna

Podberezkin Alexey Ivanovich

Putin Vladimir Vladimirovich

Savostyanov, Evgeniy Vadimovich

Skuratov Yuri Ilyich

Titov Konstantin Alekseevich

Tuleev Amangeldy Moldagazyevich

Yavlinsky Grigory Alekseevich

After registration, one candidate - Evgeniy Savostyanov - withdrew his candidacy, and 11 candidates were included in the ballot.

New trends, reforms and transformations.

The turning point in Russia's development was 1998 default. Causing a political crisis (for 1998 -1999 5 prime ministers were replaced over the years), nevertheless, it marked the end of the recession and the beginning of a recovery in the economy, the cause of which was the weakening of monetary policy and the subsequent depreciation of the real exchange rate of the ruble, as well as the tightening of budget policy, which made it possible to sharply reduce non-payments and barter payments. In 1999, for the first time during the years of reforms, investment dynamics acquired a positive direction

In August 1999 In 2008, there was an invasion of Dagestan by Chechen separatists under the command of Shamil Basayev. The population of Dagestan perceived the appearance of the Chechens as military aggression and began to form a militia. Within several months, the fighting moved to the territory of Chechnya.

TO February 6 2000 year, the Russian army occupies the city of Grozny (see. Siege of Grozny). Taking into account the widespread accusations of the death of civilians during the first Chechen campaign, Russia announced the opening of a “humanitarian corridor” for the exit of refugees for several days. After its closure, the assault on the city begins.

In January 2001 Putin signed a decree “On measures to combat terrorism in the North Caucasus region of the Russian Federation,” decreeing the creation of an operational headquarters to manage counter-terrorism operations in the region .

With the start of the second Chechen campaign, federal forces are banking on the “Chechenization of the conflict.” Goes to their side mufti Chechnya Akhmad Kadyrov. During the parade 9th May 2004 year dedicated to the celebration Victory Day, died as a result territorial act. His son Ramzan Kadyrov V 2007 was appointed president of Chechnya.

The first attack was launched against the founder of a popular television company NTV Vladimir Gusinsky. The television company had a significant debt, which was subsequently transferred to the state company Gazprom, which had already been formed by that time. As a result of a change of ownership Vladimir Gusinsky lost the TV channel, the company's management and a significant number of journalists were replaced.

February 13 2000 Vladimir Gusinsky was detained as part of an investigation on charges of fraud during the privatization of Channel 11 of St. Petersburg television, which, according to investigators, was bought by Gusinsky for $5 thousand with a real cost of $10 million. A few days later the case was closed, and he Vladimir Gusinsky left for Spain. A number of major Russian entrepreneurs (Khodorkovsky, Vekselberg, Potanin, etc.), US President Bill Clinton, and Israeli politician Shimon Peres came to his defense.

After emigrating to London Boris Berezovsky repeatedly accuses the FSB of attempts to assassinate himself, and begins to consistently promote various incriminating evidence against the FSB. Yes, he is with 2002 year began to promote the theory of the alleged involvement of the FSB in terrorist attacks 1999 of the year. WITH 2006 year promotes the theory of the involvement of the FSB in the death of Alexander Litvinenko.

Case Mikhail Khodorkovsky caused a resonance in Russia and abroad.

On February 19, 2003, at a meeting of representatives of big business with the President of Russia, M. Khodorkovsky accused corruption state company " Rosneft", citing the example of the purchase of a small oil company " Northern oil"for a fabulous sum of $600 million at that time. In response, Putin reminded Khodorkovsky that YUKOS had problems with taxes (although he did not specify what) and asked how the oil company obtained “extra reserves.”

One of the reasons for the beginning of the defeat of the company was said to be Putin’s dissatisfaction with the financing of Russian parties by Khodorkovsky and other Yukos shareholders that were in opposition to the government in force at that time - “ Apple», THX, Communist Party of the Russian Federation.

Khodorkovsky's supporters held various seminars, organized rallies and distributed stickers in which they campaigned in their favor, mentioning, in particular, Khodorkovsky's efforts to ensure business "transparency" YUKOS.

The case caused a stir, and US President George W. Bush expressed concern about Khodorkovsky's fate. At the end of 2004, the YUKOS case was transferred by shareholders to the court of Houston, Texas. After the Putin-Bush summit in Bratislava in the spring of 2005, the judge expressed support for Khodorkovsky, however, refused to consider the case, since the jurisdiction of the courts of the United States cannot extend beyond its territory, and violation of this principle would create a precedent in international law with unpredictable consequences.

In 2005, Khodorkovsky was sentenced to 9 years in prison, to be served in a colony in Krasnokamensk, Chita region.

Under Putin, the external government debt was paid in full ahead of schedule. This was done largely due to the sharp rise in prices for Russian export commodities - primarily oil and gas. A significant part of the additional income received due to rising prices was placed in foreign financial institutions. There is an opinion that the funds support the economies of other countries and they should have found other uses . There is also an opinion that the influx of petrodollars has led to “ Dutch disease» Russian economy and the “strengthening” of the ruble.

Other prerequisites for economic growth include the consequences 1998 default, which led to a sharp increase in the price of imported goods compared to domestic ones, and, as a result, to a significant improvement in the competitiveness of Russian goods in the domestic market.

During the presidency of Vladimir Putin, it was formed Stabilization Fund of the Russian Federation, the emergence of which was made possible by the beginning of economic growth. Generally Stabilization Fund causes clashes between supporters different ways to spend increased state budget revenues:

Saving. Reduce state expenses to a minimum, reduce the budget to a surplus, and accumulate funds in the Stabilization Fund.

Early payment of debts. Direct state revenues primarily to early repayment of the significant external debt accumulated by the governments of Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin.

Social projects. Spend funds primarily on various social needs.

WITH 1st of February 2008 year, the stabilization fund was divided into two parts: the Reserve Fund (3,069 billion rubles) and the National Welfare Fund (782.8 billion rubles) [

Under Putin, there has been a significant increase in foreign investment in Russia (from $11 billion in 2000 to $53 billion in 2005).

TO 2005 year, Russia maintained a system of benefits for the poor, the main one of which was free travel on public transport for pensioners and military personnel. By this time, the system of benefits began to cause strong dissatisfaction among transport workers, since the state budget did not compensate for their financial losses in an insufficient amount. The tension gradually built up over several years. IN 2004 year, the state decided to take such a radical step as replacing this benefit, as well as benefits on medicines, with monetary compensation. The announcement of the upcoming “monetization of benefits” caused a stir among pensioners. 2004 year, there was widespread discontent, but it was virtually ignored by the authorities. Rallies and other forms of political protests were held throughout Russia. During 2005 In 2008, in a number of regions, monetary compensation was increased to a level that suited pensioners, and the protests gradually subsided.

IN 2005 President Putin announced the implementation of four national projects in the social sphere and economics (national project “Health”, national project “Education”, national project “Housing”, national project “Development of the Agro-Industrial Complex”) . The results achieved include:

As part of the national project “Education”: timely payments to class teachers, competitions for innovative schools and universities, connecting regions to funding.

As part of the national project “Healthcare”: 22 thousand 652 units of diagnostic equipment were supplied to medical institutions (more than a million diagnostic tests were carried out on them), 6 thousand 723 new cars were supplied (renewal of the sanitary vehicle fleet by a third), Dmitry Medvedev said. The salaries of first-line doctors have been raised by 10,000 rubles at a time, which is expected to increase the prestige of their work.

Increase in the volume of housing construction, mortgages;

In January 2008 Vladimir Putin said that national projects are more effective than other government programs. In his opinion, such a result was achieved thanks to the concentration of administrative and political resources.

In September 2007 there is a sharp rise in prices for dairy products (7%) and sunflower oil (13.5%) , which the authorities explained by the rise in world prices, the abolition of subsidies for food exports by the European Union , and sunflower crop failure in Russia. Other explanations include alleged collusion among large retail chains , or an increase in world prices due to the massive processing of plant materials into biofuels. The communist opposition stated that a number of prices had increased by one and a half times in three months, demanded a freeze on prices, and the resignation of the government.

At the end 2007 - beginning 2008 specialists at the investment bank Goldman Sachs began to promote the term “agflation” (agricultural inflation). According to Goldman Sachs, in 2007 food prices increased by 41% (in 2006 - by 26%), which the bank’s specialists explain by the processing of agricultural raw materials into biofuel, and the increase in meat consumption in developing countries (in particular, China).

Criticism of the economic growth that Russia has steadily moved towards under Vladimir Putin's presidency consists mainly of criticism of the economy's dangerous dependence on unpredictable world oil prices. IN 2007 In 2009, US Congressman Tom Lantos made an offensive comparison of President Putin with the cartoon character Popeye the sailor: “They are eating the spinach of oil revenues - billions are flowing into the hands of the Kremlin, and with every billion... Putin’s muscles are growing by leaps and bounds.” According to the application Yegor Gaidar, Russia "in 2009 -2010 a crisis awaits... 1986 year, the price of oil fell six times, and this was precisely what became the “catalyst for the collapse of the Soviet economy” and the subsequent collapse of the USSR, and the decrease in prices slightly more than doubled 1997 -1998 years launched the mechanism of financial collapse 1998 of the year".

Expectations of a social explosion and/or collapse of Russia in the event of an unexpected and sharp drop in world oil prices are extremely common. According to one of the leaders of the Russian liberal opposition, Garry Kasparov, “Putin’s regime is completely dependent on foreign economic conditions related to oil prices. And falling oil prices will naturally draw a line under Putin’s rule.”

Foreign policy under Putin

In June 2000 By decree of Putin, the “Concept of Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation” was approved. According to this document, the main goals of the country's foreign policy are:

ensuring reliable security of the country, preserving and strengthening it sovereignty and territorial integrity, strong and authoritative positions in the world community, which best meet the interests of the Russian Federation as a great power, as one of the influential centers of the modern world, and which are necessary for the growth of its political, economic, intellectual and spiritual potential;

influencing global processes in order to form a stable, fair and democratic world order, built on generally accepted norms of international law, including primarily the goals and principles of the UN Charter, on equal and partnership relations between states;

creating favorable external conditions for the progressive development of Russia, the rise of its economy, raising the standard of living of the population, successful implementation of democratic reforms, strengthening the foundations of the constitutional system, respect for human rights and freedoms;

the formation of a belt of good neighborliness along the perimeter of the Russian borders, assistance in eliminating existing and preventing the emergence of potential hotbeds of tension and conflict in the regions adjacent to the Russian Federation;

searching for agreement and coinciding interests with foreign countries and interstate associations in the process of solving problems determined by the national priorities of Russia, building on this basis a system of partnerships and allied relations that improve the conditions and parameters of international interaction;

comprehensive protection of the rights and interests of Russian citizens and compatriots abroad;

promoting a positive perception of the Russian Federation in the world, popularization of the Russian language and culture of the peoples of Russia in foreign countries.

IN 2000 -2007 Putin took part in summits « Group of Eight» (« Big Eight") in Okinawa ( Japan, 2000 ), in Genoa ( Italy, 2001 ), Kananaskis ( Canada, 2002 ), Evian ( France, 2003 ), Sea Island ( USA, 2004 ), Gleneagles ( Great Britain, 2005 ) St. Petersburg ( Russia, 2006 ) and Heiligendamm ( Germany, 2007 ).

September 6-8 2000 Putin participated in the Millennium Summit (officially called "UN in the 21st century") in New York. In June 2001 Putin met with the President for the first time USA George W. Bush in the capital Slovenia Ljubljana.

During presidential elections in Ukraine at the end of 2004 Russian authorities supported Viktor Yanukovych- candidate from Party of Regions of Ukraine, who advocated economic cooperation with Russia within the framework Common Economic Space(SES) and giving the Russian language the status of a second state language. But after the November 21 elections, the opposition parties of Viktor Yushchenko, Yulia Tymoshenko and Alexander Moroz brought tens of thousands of people into the streets and declared election fraud ( Orange Revolution). After Yushchenko’s victory in the third round appointed by the Supreme Court of Ukraine, the “orange coalition” came to power, declaring the main goals of foreign policy to be joining the EU and NATO while maintaining cooperation with Russia, but without joining the SES.

24 February 2005 Putin held a meeting with Bush V Bratislava (Slovakia), the main topic of which was the situation with democracy in Russia.

25th of April 2005 In his Address to the Federal Assembly, Putin called the collapse of the USSR a major geopolitical catastrophe and called on society to consolidate in building a new democratic Russia.

9th May 2005 During celebrations marking the 60th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War, Putin and other world leaders called for a fight against Nazism XXI century - terrorism and thanked the winners fascism.

In September 2005 Putin took part in anniversary celebrations on the occasion of his 60th birthday UN.

In 2006, Russia chaired the "Group of Eight"(“Big Eight”).

October 10 2006 Putin, as part of his visit to the Federal Republic of Germany , spoke at a public forum St. Petersburg dialogue 2006. The speech took place against the backdrop of demonstrations by the German public in Dresden, dedicated to Putin’s alleged involvement in the murder of a journalist. Anna Politkovskaya. In his interview with a German TV channel ARD Putin said Politkovskaya's murder was far more damaging to the Russian leadership than her publications. He also said that the Russian leadership will do everything to identify and punish Politkovskaya’s killers .

October 14 2004 , during a visit to Beijing, Putin signed an agreement addendum to the agreement on the Russian-Chinese state border . In 2005 it took place demarcation of the Russian-Chinese border, during which China received 337 km² of disputed territory - Tarabarov Island and part of Bolshoy Ussuriysky Island. Improved relations with China, the length of the border with which is more than 4,300 km, and the removal of the potential threat of a territorial conflict in the future were cited as a positive result of the agreements. On the other hand, a number of politicians regarded the signing of the agreement as a weakening of Russia’s position.

Some critics accuse Putin of not respecting Russia's geopolitical interests. So, in 2002 the naval base was closed Cam Ranh (Vietnam) . In the same year, the radio electronic center in Lourdes was closed ( Cuba), of great strategic importance . During Putin's presidency, agreements were signed on the withdrawal of Russian military bases from Georgia . According to them, Russia pledged to withdraw its military forces from Georgia before 2008 of the year. During Russian-Georgian spy scandal Putin ordered the acceleration of the withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgia . On November 15, 2007, the last Russian military man left Georgian territory.

Political scientist Stanislav Belkovsky believes that during the 7 years of Putin’s rule, Russia has lost the status of a regional power, which it maintained throughout the 1990s. According to Belkovsky, “Putin’s Russia is not the leading political force in the post-Soviet space, and this is a direct result of Putin’s policy of transforming the state into an appendage of several dozen large corporations led by Gazprom.”

The United States and the Russian Federation take sharply contradictory positions on a number of issues:

Support for “color revolutions” in the Soviet Union;

Support for the unrecognized authorities of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria;

Entry of Ukraine and Georgia into NATO;

Construction of a missile defense system;

Promotion of pipelines delivering Caspian oil bypassing Russian territory;

Independence of Kosovo;

Construction of a nuclear reactor in Bushehr, Islamic Republic of Iran;

Military supplies to Venezuela;

Reception in Moscow of representatives of the terrorist movement " Hamas” after his victory in the Palestinian elections.

The aggravation of relations occurs against the background of massive accusations of the Russian authorities of curtailing democracy, and demands to exclude Russia from G8, and not allow into WTO.

Relations with Poland are also becoming strained, whose president Alexander Kwasniewski played a prominent role in the events of the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine, and with Israel, which has expressed strong concerns about Russian military supplies to Syria and the construction of a nuclear reactor in Iran.

The wave of “color revolutions” in the post-Soviet space in 2006 fades away; the victory of the “tulip revolution” in Kyrgyzstan did not lead to a change in its foreign policy orientation, Uzbekistan and other former Soviet republics come to the conclusion that it is necessary to strictly suppress protests, despite diplomatic pressure and sanctions from the United States and the EU. The main "orange" countries Ukraine And Georgia, are entering a period of deep political crisis. In addition, Russia is exerting economic pressure on Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova, as well as on Poland and Estonia.

In April 2007 The concerns of the Russian minority in Estonia about their situation result in mass unrest in Tallinn (cm.Bronze soldier ). Russia takes the side of the protesters, condemns the actions of the Estonian police, and puts diplomatic and economic pressure on the Estonian authorities.

Controversy over the deployment of a missile defense system in Europe

The growing bias, in the opinion of the Russian government, of NGOs financed by Western powers and, as a consequence, the dissatisfaction of the Russian authorities towards them, finds its outlet in January 2006. Russia accuses British diplomats of financing NGOs through semi-legal methods, which is contrary to Russian laws. This event ends with the expulsion of diplomats, and causes a negative reaction from the liberal opposition, closely associated with some of the NGOs.

In 2002, the United States terminated the 72-year-old Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which was an important milestone in stopping the arms race. At the end of 2006, the United States announced its intention to deploy elements missile defense systems in the Czech Republic and Poland. The Russian authorities declare their extremely negative reaction, accusing the American authorities of the fact that the missile defense system is aimed at Russia, and not, according to the official version of the United States, North Korea or Iran. In February 2007, Vladimir Putin says “ Munich speech", in April 2007 announces its desire to introduce a moratorium on the execution CFE Treaty.

In response to Russia's negative reaction, the United States has announced that it is considering deploying elements of the missile defense system in several more countries. These statements do not receive further development.

Disagreements with Great Britain

The starting point for the deterioration of Russian-British relations was the provision of political asylum to the largest “oligarch” of the 1990s Boris Berezovsky, who is one of the most unpopular figures in Russian politics, and an emissary of Chechen terrorists, a former field commander Akhmed Zakaev.

Requests for their extradition were rejected by British courts because, in their opinion, the Russian side did not provide sufficiently compelling evidence of guilt and demonstrated the political nature of their persecution. Requests from diplomatic institutions and the government were also rejected by the British side, citing in this case the independence of the courts.

Repeated requests for extradition were rejected by Britain; The confrontation entered an active phase after the “spy stone” scandal. FSB accused Britain of funding NGOs in Russia. The British side did not refute these accusations.

Relations between the two countries became particularly acute in connection with the scandal of the alleged polonium poisoning of one of Boris Berezovsky’s employees, a former FSB officer who had previously been convicted. Alexandra Litvinenko. The backdrop for the scandal was the murder by an unknown person of a popular journalist in the West, but little known in Russia (at that time). Anna Politkovskaya, which harshly criticized Vladimir Putin’s policies, especially in Chechnya.

A new round of aggravation of relations began with the ban from 1st of January 2008 years of activity of the British Council in the territory St. Petersburg And Ekaterinburg(at the same time, the authorities did not prohibit such activities in Moscow). Representatives of the English authorities refused to curtail the activities of the British Council, however, it was nevertheless terminated after the head of the branch of this organization in St. Petersburg was detained by the traffic police, accusing him of driving while intoxicated; with Russian citizens - employees of British Council branches FSB preventive conversations were held.

Other foreign policy projects

International efforts are intensifying to create a “gas OPEC" (cm. Gas Exporting Countries Forum), the supposed founders of which could be Russia, Iran, Algeria, And Venezuela. Widespread rumors around the world about the “creation of a gas OPEC” cause a sharply negative reaction from Western powers, primarily the United States, but they also do not lead to any concrete steps. The initiative provokes opposition from the European Union as “non-market”, and from the United States, which has come up with a project to ban such associations as illegal, thus extending the application of US national laws beyond its national territory.

Increase in gas prices for Belarus in January 2007 leads to a sharply negative reaction from the latter, President Lukashenko begins to express doubts about the future of the Union State of Russia and Belarus.

Increasing tensions between Russia, on the one hand, and Ukraine and Belarus, on the other, led to the emergence of a project to supply gas to Europe along the bottom of the Baltic Sea, bypassing Ukrainian territory. This project is causing some opposition from Ukraine, Belarus, and Lithuania; Poland expresses particular dissatisfaction under the pretext of a possible, in its opinion, environmental threat from this project.

The Middle East policy of the government of Vladimir Putin is characterized by maneuvering between two opposing goals:

opposition to the initiatives of the United States

In general, it should be recognized that the first desire dominates the second, and Russian-Israeli relations are currently gradually deteriorating. On the other hand, PNA representatives are taking a number of steps to attract Russian assistance.

The first reason for the aggravation of Russian-Israeli relations was the supply of a number of weapons to Israel's potential enemy - Syria; There were also accusations that the Syrian side, with or without the knowledge of Russia, transferred some of these weapons to the terrorist movement Hezbollah. In order to dispel such accusations, Vladimir Putin is making an official visit to Israel, including visiting Jerusalem. The visit has important diplomatic significance, as the first ever visit of a Russian head to Israel.

After the victory of the Hamas terrorist movement in the elections in the Palestinian National Autonomy, Israel, the United States and a number of European Union countries are taking the initiative of an international blockade of this movement. However, its isolation was, despite the objections of these countries, interrupted by Russia, which received Hamas ambassadors in Moscow.

The signing of the new Union Treaty, scheduled for August 20, 1991, prompted conservatives to take decisive action, since the agreement deprived the top of the CPSU of real power, posts and privileges. According to the secret agreement of M. Gorbachev with B. Yeltsin and the President of Kazakhstan N. Nazarbayev, which became known to KGB Chairman V. Kryuchkov, after signing the agreement it was planned to

replace the Prime Minister of the USSR V. Pavlov with N. Nazarbayev. The same fate awaited the Minister of Defense, Kryuchkov himself, and a number of other high-ranking officials.

Another immediate reason for the development of events was the decree of the Russian President of July 20, 1991 on the departition of state institutions in the RSFSR, which dealt a strong blow to the monopoly of the CPSU. Locally, the party nomenklatura began to be ousted from regional structures and replaced with new ones.

On the eve of the signing of a new union treaty in the absence of USSR President M.S. Gorbachev, who was at that time on vacation in Foros, on the morning of August 19, television and radio announced the creation of the State Committee for the State of Emergency (GKChP), which included Vice President Yanaev, Prime Minister Pavlov, KGB Chairman Kryuchkov, and a number of other senior officials . The State Emergency Committee declared its intention to restore order in the country and prevent the collapse of the Union. A state of emergency was introduced in the country, democratic newspapers were closed, and censorship was tightened.

By introducing a state of emergency, the “Gekachepists” hoped to bring the country back: to eliminate glasnost, the multi-party system, and commercial structures. In the address “To the Soviet People”, the State Emergency Committee declared itself a true defender of democracy and reforms, generously promised to benefit all layers of Soviet society in the shortest possible time - from pensioners to entrepreneurs. AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

The main events of these days unfolded in Moscow. On August 19, tanks and armored personnel carriers were brought into the capital, blocking the main highways of the city. A curfew was declared. However, these actions caused a backlash. The putschists miscalculated the main thing - during the years of perestroika, Soviet society changed a lot. Freedom has become the highest value for people, fear has completely disappeared. Most of the country's population refused to support unconstitutional methods of overcoming the crisis. By the evening of August 19, tens of thousands of Muscovites rushed to the House of Soviets of the RSFSR; the townspeople were promised land plots.

Resistance to the measures of the State Emergency Committee was led by B.N. Yeltsin and the Russian leadership. They organized their supporters for protest rallies and construction of barricades near the parliament building. The troops brought into Moscow refused to shoot at the people. Given the virtual inaction of the State Emergency Committee, Yeltsin’s supporters managed to quickly turn the situation in their favor. On August 22, members of the State Emergency Committee were arrested.

An analysis of the events of August 19–21, 1991 shows that their outcome was influenced not so much by force factors or the legal validity of the positions of the parties, but by a sense of the political situation, the ability to gather one’s supporters at the right time and in the right place and put the enemy in such conditions as which even numerical or force superiority will not bring him victory.

One of the main goals of the State Emergency Committee was to “put pressure” on the Russian leadership, force them to sit down at the negotiating table and formulate conditions for the future Union Treaty that would be acceptable for preserving the USSR and leading the country out of the crisis. At the same time, its leaders, not without reason, counted on the rejection of M.S. by the majority of the population. Gorbachev and the lack of a mass stable political base in Yeltsin, as well as on the allied leaders, the KGB, the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the SA of the USSR, subordinate to them. However, they underestimated the informational, political and organizational “mobilization”, the uncompromising position, the willingness of opponents to go “to the end”, as well as the population’s rejection of military intervention.

The Tbilisi, Baku and Vilnius “syndromes”, when the army was used against extremists, but was subjected to blasphemy for raising arms against the “civilian population”, made it difficult and even made it almost impossible to attract it to active action in Moscow. But in those cases, the use of the Armed Forces was still preceded by major provocations, and in the capital everything took on the appearance of a “top showdown.” The position of those who proposed to involve the army to exert psychological pressure prevailed in the State Emergency Committee. As Marshal D.T. later said. Yazov, he agreed to join the Committee with the firm reservation that the army would be assigned the role of a passive pressing force. The reluctance of the security forces (army, KGB, Ministry of Internal Affairs) to participate in political “showdowns”, the active rejection of the State Emergency Committee by a number of high-ranking military men largely predetermined the outcome of the confrontation that began on August 19.

On the night of August 20-21, an incident occurred that was destined to have a significant impact on the development of the political situation. Under strange circumstances, three young men from among the “defenders” of the White House died.

The subsequent investigation of these events showed that what happened was, rather, not an accident, but the result of a premeditated provocation. Nevertheless, the fact that the blood of “civilians” was shed by the military subordinate to the State Emergency Committee was the last straw, which predetermined the end of the hesitations of the already unstable supporters of the Committee, allowing the Russian leadership to launch a full-scale political offensive against their opponents and win a complete and unconditional victory.

On the morning of August 21, the Board of the USSR Ministry of Defense spoke out in favor of the withdrawal of troops from Moscow and the abolition of high alert.

The August events and the victory of the Russian leadership contributed to a sharp acceleration of the development of political processes and a change in the balance of power in the country. The Communist Party, which compromised itself by the participation of members of its highest bodies in the coup, was banned. USSR President Gorbachev essentially began to play a decorative role. Most of the republics refused to sign the Union Treaty after the coup attempt. The question of the continued existence of the USSR was on the agenda.

In an attempt to get rid of the discredited center, the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus met in Minsk in December 1991 and announced the termination of the 1922 Union Treaty and their intention to create the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). It united 11 former Soviet republics (excluding Georgia and the Baltic states.

2. The collapse of the USSR and the “parade of sovereignties”

collapse political parade sovereignty

After the August crisis, a situation arose when the decisions made by leaders were determined not by the Constitution and laws of the USSR, but by the real balance of forces and differently understood “political expediency.” Republican authorities acted without regard to the Union Center. The State Emergency Committee’s speech became a convenient reason for abandoning serious integration proposals. From the end of August, the dismantling of allied political and government structures began at an increasing pace. On this basis, some historians believe that in reality the Soviet Union “died” immediately after August, continuing to formally exist until the end of the year.

The idea of ​​updating the Union Treaty of 1922 was put forward at the First Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR in the spring of 1989. At the Fourth Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR in December 1990, when a set of issues about the prospects of the Soviet state were discussed, the congress resolution “On the general concept of the new Union Treaty and the procedure for its conclusion” was adopted.

In development of the “autonomization plan,” it was assumed that the renewed Union would be based on “the principles set forth in the declarations of the republics and autonomies on state sovereignty.” It was believed that, as a matter of priority, the division of powers between the Union and each subject of the future federation separately should be agreed upon. Finally, the resolution emphasized that “the main condition for achieving agreement is compliance by all government bodies with the current Constitution of the USSR and Union laws before signing the new Union Treaty.”

Quote from: Resolution of the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR of December 25, 1990 No. 1858-1 “On the general concept of the new Union Treaty and the procedure for its conclusion” // Vedomosti SND and the USSR Supreme Court. 1991. No. 1. Art. 2.

The new action program receives the name “Novo-Ogarsvsky process” when, on April 23, 1991, USSR President M.S. Gorbachev holds the first consultations with the leaders of the RSFSR, Ukraine, Belarus, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Turkmenistan at his Novo-Ogarevo residence on Rublevo-Uspenskoye Highway near the village of Usovo near Moscow. This meeting, like a number of others held in the same composition, was called

“9+1” - nine union republics of the USSR and the President of the USSR, personifying the union Center.

The success of the event was largely predetermined by the participation of the RSFSR in it. At the beginning of April 1991, the most popular of the leaders of the union republics was Chairman of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR B.N. Yeltsin wins an important political victory. At the Fourth Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR, he managed to achieve strong support for his plans for political and economic reforms. B.N. Yeltsin, in particular, proposes the formation of a broad democratic coalition and the beginning of a dialogue between all political forces of all union republics. This dialogue should be based on the principle of non-use of force as a means of political struggle, the development of a system of direct democracy and the implementation of the decisions of the referendums of the USSR and the RSFSR.

In the economic field, according to B.N. Yeltsin, the main thing is the creation of a system of real separation of powers on the principle of “checks and balances” and the fastest possible transition to market relations in order to “put an end to instability, devastation and social apathy” 1 . In order to overcome the destructive consequences of the “autonomization plan” and contain the separatist aspirations of a number of republics within Russia, the Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR decides to act at the union level within the framework of a single Russian delegation, but subsequently conclude a special Federative Treaty between the subjects of the RSFSR. USSR President M.S. Gorbachev promises to support this position of the RSFSR and thereby ensures the participation of B.N. Yeltsin in Novo-Ogarevo consultations.

Long nine-hour consultations in Novo-Ogaryovo end with the adoption of a Joint Statement by the President of the USSR and the leaders of nine union republics “On urgent measures to stabilize the situation in the country and overcome the crisis,” which journalists immediately began to name by the number of private participants "9+1 Agreement".

The key idea of ​​the Novo-Ogarsovsky “9+1 Agreement” is an attempt to quickly defuse the political situation in the USSR and reduce the level of confrontation between the Center and the union republics. USSR President M.S. Gorbachev actually exchanges the political support of the leaders of the republics within the USSR for a promise to adopt a new Union Treaty in August 1991 “taking into account the results of the all-Union referendum” and by the end of 1991 - the Constitution of the renewed Union, as well as to hold elections of new union authorities. For the union republics that agree to sign a new Union Treaty, within the framework of the single economic space they are creating, M.S. Gorbachev proposes to establish a special most favored nation regime 1 . The Statement also contained a call for joint implementation of anti-crisis measures, compliance with the norms of the current Constitution of the USSR until the adoption of a new one, the implementation of a number of social measures and the abandonment of strikes.

The start of the “Novo-Ogarsvi process”, especially the promise of M.S. Gorbachev to form new government bodies by the end of 1991, causing real rage among party conservatives and the bureaucracy. To develop the position of the Communist Party of the USSR in relation to the “9+1 Agreement”, a joint Plenum of the Central Committee and the Central Control Commission of the CPSU meets on April 25, 1991. One of the leaders of the “conservative wing” of the communists, member of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee and first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the RSFSR Ivan Kuzmin Polozkov demands the introduction of a state of emergency in the USSR, accuses M.S. Gorbachev is in the collapse of the country and insists on expressing no confidence in him. In response M.S. Gorbachev declares his intention to resign from his duties as General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee 2 . Eventually

• 1 In particular, the obligations of the union bodies and republics recorded in bilateral economic agreements on tax payments for 1991 are confirmed. By decision of the Cabinet of Ministers of the USSR, the 5% tax on the sale of a number of consumer goods is to be abolished, tariffs for railway and air transport are being reduced, and the issue of indexing household incomes is being resolved.
• 2 Literally M.S. Gorbachev says: “You decide here, but I’ll go.” After an emergency meeting of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, it was decided to put to a vote not the issue of trust itself, but only the question of including such an issue on the agenda of the joint plenum. In the end, a decision was made: “... based on the highest interests of the country, the people, the party, to remove from consideration the proposal put forward by M.S. Gorbachev’s proposal for his resignation from the post of General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee.” The proposal of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee was supported by an overwhelming majority with 13 “against” and 14 “abstaining” (RGASPI. F. 89. Op. 12. D. 26).

Against this background, Russia decisively came out in support of M.S.’s new policy. Gorbachev. On April 26, 1991, the Supreme Council of the RSFSR adopted the Resolution “On the joint statement of the President of the USSR and the leaders of nine union republics,” in which it declared “its support for the planned program for stabilizing society and preserving the Union State” 1 . The deputies decided to immediately begin implementing the anti-crisis measures outlined in the joint statement on the territory of the RSFSR. We recommended that the Commission of the Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR for the development of proposals for the draft Union Treaty “accelerate the development of the draft of the new Union Treaty, guided by the results of the all-Union referendum and the proposals contained in the statement,” and also addressed “the citizens of the RSFSR, labor collectives, public organizations, parties and movements with a call to refrain from acts of civil disobedience and calls for them.”

Indeed, an important political consequence of the start of the “Novo-Ogarsva process” is a sharp decrease in the level of strike activity. However, on the eve of the May Day holidays B.N. Yeltsin tours the cities of the Kuzbass coal basin with a plan for the complete transfer of coal industry enterprises to the jurisdiction of the RSFSR.

At the same time, the reform of the public administration system in Russia continues, associated with the introduction of the post of President of the RSFSR, the creation of new government bodies and other republican structures. In particular, on May 6, 1991, the Constitutional Court of the RSFSR was established, which, in the opinion of the Russian leadership, “should serve to strengthen the constitutional system of the Russian Federation and establish the principles of legality in lawmaking and law enforcement.”

On the same day, Chairman of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR B.N. Yeltsin and Chairman of the KGB of the USSR V.A. Kryuchkov signed a protocol on the creation of the KGB of the RSFSR and the appointment of its leader, and on May 13, with the release of the first issue of the Vesti information program, regular broadcasting of Russian television began. According to the results of the popular vote, which took place on the day the Declaration of State Sovereignty of the RSFSR was adopted on June 12, 1991, B.N. was elected to the post of President of the RSFSR. Yeltsin.

In 1991, in the context of the beginning of the collapse of the single economic space of the USSR, the renewed Russian leadership in an unconventional way stimulated the strengthening of horizontal economic ties within the republic, in particular through the creation of interregional associations 1 . This business model was based on a set of measures to develop cooperation between territories through the implementation of joint projects on a shared basis. The meaning of such extraordinary actions, in essence, was an attempt to preserve a group of territories in conditions of economic crisis

‘In the early 1990s, eight interregional associations functioned in the Russian Federation: “North-West”, “Central Russia”, “Big Volga”, “Chernozemye”, “Siberian Agreement”. Association of Economic Cooperation of Regions of the Ural Region of the RSFSR, Association of Social and Economic Cooperation of Republics, Territories and Regions of the North Caucasus, Far Eastern Association of Economic Cooperation. The Association of Autonomous Okrugs of the Russian Federation, created in February 1992, stood somewhat apart.

The principle of functioning of such associations is illustrated, for example, by the decision to create the Interregional Association “Siberian Agreement”. In particular, in July 1991, before the adoption of the relevant legislative acts of the RSFSR, the Association was granted the right:

determine the procedure for the use of natural resources and collection of fees for the use of natural resources,

leave at the disposal of the Association members 10 percent of the products produced by enterprises located on their territory to form regional funds of commodity and raw material reserves,

issuing permits for barter transactions, licensing the export and import of goods (work, services) for members of the Association within the established quotas,

regulate the size of the consumption fund of enterprises and organizations located on the territory of the Association members, taking into account the balance of the commodity and money supply,

independently determine for 1991 - 1993 additional benefits on income taxes for enterprises and organizations located on the territory of the Association’s participants,

independently form long-term direct supplies of food between members of the Association on account of deliveries to republican funds from September 1, 1991" (quoted from: Order of the Chairman of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR dated July 1, 1991 No. 1503/1-1 "Issues of the activities of the Interregional Association "Siberian agreement” // Gazette of the SND and Supreme Court of the RSFSR. 1991. No. 27. Art. 936).

with a relatively stable socio-economic situation.

At the beginning of the summer of 1991, the split in the union leadership acquired the features of direct confrontation, while only a few days remained before the denouement. The leaders of the allied law enforcement agencies are changing tactics and trying to enlist the support of deputies of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, whose members not only participated in the elections of the President of the USSR, but also could have suffered the most if the “Novo-Ogarevo process” was successful 1 . The key role in opposing the new policy of M.S. Gorbachev is played by the USSR Cabinet of Ministers under the leadership

At a meeting of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR on June 17, 1991, Prime Minister V.S. Pavlov demands emergency powers for the Cabinet of Ministers of the USSR, citing the fact that as a result of political instability and a decline in labor discipline in the five months of 1991, the USSR economy was greatly degraded, and the union budget deficit during this period exceeded 39 billion rubles. The Prime Minister of the USSR actually accuses the President of the USSR M.S. Gorbachev is inactive. Then, at a closed meeting of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, the Minister of Defense, the Minister of Internal Affairs and the Chairman of the KGB of the USSR speak to the deputies with information about the current state of affairs. In particular, the Chairman of the KGB of the USSR Vladimir Alexandrovich Kryuchkov calls the perestroika reforms a conspiracy of the US Central Intelligence Agency, which is carried out through “agents of influence” in the USSR, and notes that “if emergency measures are not taken, our country will cease to exist.”

Things were actually heading towards a constitutional revolution, since the President of the USSR was elected by the Congress of People's Deputies

The USSR and the Supreme Council could begin the process of removing him from power.

The next day, alarmed M.S. Gorbachev personally came to the meeting of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and, as a result, was able to disavow V.S.’s speech. Pavlova, achieved the appropriate vote. However, it became clear to everyone: the President of the USSR was losing control over the Supreme Soviet of the USSR.

On June 17, 1991, in Novo-Ogarevo, the President of the USSR, using the “9+1” formula, agreed on a new draft of the Union Treaty. In total, five different versions of this document were prepared, but then its final name was fixed - the Treaty on the Union of Sovereign States.

Despite the formal progress in work on the Union Treaty, Russia was dissatisfied with the position of the President of the USSR and the Union Center regarding the recognition of equal rights of autonomies.

As the Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR Committee on Legislation noted in his interview on July 2, 1991

CM. Shakhrai, “The Union Treaty in the form in which it was published and submitted to the Supreme Councils of the republics for approval and signing, means for Russia the cessation of political reforms, the slowdown or abandonment of radical economic reform and, accordingly, the abandonment of hopes for a quick improvement in life.

• (...) Each republic within the RSFSR is part of the Russian state. But it is planned that it will act in relation to the Union on an equal basis with the whole. In this case, the whole RSFSR is the whole. But if a part acquires the same rights as the whole, then it itself becomes a whole. And, naturally, in this case, the former autonomous republics cease to be part of the RSFSR.
• (...) Russia cannot sign the Union Treaty without deciding on its own federal structure. But in the proposed version, the federal treaty puts Russia on the brink of feudal fragmentation... The Union Treaty needs very serious and rapid revision” 1 .

In response to this, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR in its resolution “On the draft Treaty on the Union of Sovereign States” directly established: “...indicate in the draft Union

• 1 Union Treaty. What does he bring to the peoples of Russia // Rossiyskaya Gazeta. No. 137 (183). 1991. July 2. pp. 1-2.

The Treaty states that the participants in its conclusion and, accordingly, the subjects of the federation are both sovereign states - republics, and republics included in them on a treaty or constitutional basis. Each of the republics has the right to sign the text of the Union Treaty” 1.

Work on the draft Treaty on the Union of Sovereign States was completed on July 23, 1991. In August, the Russian delegation makes an official decision to sign this document. The signing of the Treaty itself is scheduled for August 20, 1991, and on August 4, USSR President M.S. Gorbachev goes on vacation to his residence in Foros on the southern coast of Crimea.

In the modern history of Russia there have been three drafts of fundamental documents, the work on which took a lot of time, enormous efforts of many people, gave rise to a variety of hopes, but ended in nothing. This is the “500 Days” Program, the draft Treaty on the Union of Sovereign States and the draft of the new Constitution of the Russian Federation - Russia, which over the course of a number of years was developed by the Constitutional Commission of the Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR. Due to the catastrophic lag of developers behind the pace of real events, completely different political and economic decisions were implemented in practice in our country. But it’s not just about wasted efforts. These unadopted “ghost” documents so strongly influenced the worldview of many politicians that ideas associated with them, for example, ideas about the possibility of an economic union of sovereign republics, about the “constitutive nature” of the Federal Treaty, about the fundamental inequality of the constitutional statuses of the subjects of the Federation, or about the need to restore the omnipotence of the Soviets of People's Deputies did not only have a long legal and political “echo”, but also largely determined the intensity and direction of the future constitutional crisis in Russia in 1992-1993.