Solution of the national question in the USSR. Aggravation of interethnic relations in the USSR. the collapse of the ussr and its causes

As perestroika developed, the importance of national problems.

In 1989 and especially in 1990-1991. happened bloody clashes in Central Asia (Fergana, Dushanbe, Osh and a number of other regions). The region of intense ethnic armed conflicts was the Caucasus, primarily South Ossetia and Abkhazia. In 1990-1991 in South Ossetia, in essence, there was a real war in which only heavy artillery, aircraft and tanks were not used.

The confrontation also took place in Moldova, where the population of the Gagauz and Transnistrian regions protested against the infringement of their national rights, and in the Baltic states, where part of the Russian-speaking population opposed the leadership of the republics.

In the Baltic republics, in Ukraine, in Georgia, sharp forms are taken struggle for independence for seceding from the USSR. In early 1990, after Lithuania declared its independence and negotiations over Nagorno-Karabakh stalled, it became clear that the central government was unable to use economic ties in the process of a radical revision of federal relations, which was the only way to prevent, or even to stop the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The collapse of the USSR. Formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States

Prerequisites for the collapse of the USSR.

1) A deep socio-economic crisis that has engulfed the entire country. The crisis led to the rupture of economic ties and gave rise to the desire of the republics to "save themselves alone."

2) The destruction of the Soviet system - a sharp weakening of the center.

3) The collapse of the CPSU.

4) Aggravation between national relations. National conflicts undermined state unity, becoming one of the reasons for the destruction of the union statehood.

5) Republican separatism and political ambition of local leaders.

The union center is no longer able to retain power democratically and resorts to military force: Tbilisi - September 1989, Baku - January 1990, Vilnius and Riga - January 1991, Moscow - August 1991. In addition - interethnic conflicts in Central Asia (1989-1990): Fergana, Dushanbe, Osh and etc.

The last straw that prompted the party and state leadership of the USSR to act was the threat of signing a new Union Treaty, which was worked out during the negotiations of representatives of the republics in Novo-Ogaryovo.

The August putsch of 1991 and its failure.

August 1991 - Gorbachev was on vacation in the Crimea. The signing of a new Union Treaty was scheduled for August 20. On August 18, a number of senior officials of the USSR propose to Gorbachev to introduce a state of emergency throughout the country, but they receive a refusal from him. In order to disrupt the signing of the Union Treaty and preserve their power, part of the top party and state leadership tried to seize power. On August 19, a state of emergency was introduced in the country (for 6 months). On the streets of Moscow and a number of others major cities troops were brought in.

But coup failed. The population of the country basically refused to support the State Emergency Committee, while the army did not want to use force against its citizens. Already on August 20, barricades grew around the White House, on which there were several tens of thousands of people, and some military units went over to the side of the defenders. The resistance was led by Russian President Boris Yeltsin. The actions of the GKChP were perceived very negatively abroad, from where statements were immediately made about the suspension of assistance to the USSR.

The coup was extremely poorly organized, there was no active operational leadership. Already on August 22, he was defeated, and the members of the State Emergency Committee were arrested. Interior Minister Pugo shot himself. The main reason for the failure of the coup d'état was the determination of the masses to defend their political freedoms.

The final stage of the collapse of the USSR(September - December 1991).

The attempted coup d'etat dramatically accelerated the collapse of the USSR, led to Gorbachev's loss of prestige and power, and a noticeable increase in Yeltsin's popularity. The activity of the CPSU was suspended and then terminated. Gorbachev resigned as General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU and dissolved the Central Committee. In the days following the putsch, 8 republics declared their full independence, and the three Baltic republics achieved recognition from the USSR. There was a sharp reduction in the competence of the KGB, it was announced about its reorganization.

On December 1, 1991, more than 80% of the population of Ukraine spoke in favor of the independence of their republic.

December 8, 1991 - Belovezhskaya agreement (Yeltsin, Kravchuk, Shushkevich): the termination of the Union Treaty of 1922 and the end of the activities of state structures were announced former Union. Russia, Ukraine and Belarus reached an agreement on the creation Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). The three states invited all former republics to join the CIS.

On December 21, 1991, 8 republics joined the CIS. A Declaration was adopted on the cessation of the existence of the USSR and on the principles of the activities of the CIS. On December 25, Gorbachev announced the resignation of the functions of the president in connection with the disappearance of the state. In 1994, Azerbaijan and Georgia joined the CIS.

During the existence of the CIS, more than 900 fundamental legal acts have been signed. They concerned a single ruble space, open borders, defense, space, information exchange, security, customs policy, and so on.

Review questions:

1. The main reasons that led to the aggravation of interethnic relations in the USSR by the beginning of the 1990s are listed.

2. Name the regions in which hotbeds of tension have developed. In what forms did national conflicts unfold there?

3. How did the USSR collapse?

Prerequisites for the collapse of the USSR.

1) A deep socio-economic crisis that has engulfed the entire country. The crisis led to the rupture of economic ties and gave rise to the desire of the republics to "save themselves alone."

2) The destruction of the Soviet system - a sharp weakening of the center.

3) The collapse of the CPSU.

4) Aggravation of interethnic relations. National conflicts undermined state unity, becoming one of the reasons for the destruction of the union statehood.

5) Republican separatism and political ambition of local leaders.

The collapse of the CPSU, which cemented the forces of the political system, of the entire union statehood, proceeded not only along ideological, but also along national lines:

a) the end of 1989-1990. - Withdrawal from the Communist Party of the Baltic Communist Parties.

b) 1990 - creation of the Communist Party of the RSFSR (as part of the CPSU).

c) 1990-1991 - multi-party system. In January 1991, a Democratic Congress (47 parties and movements from 12 republics) was held in Kharkov, which proposed expressing no confidence in the government and the president, boycotting the referendum on March 17 and dissolving the USSR.

The weakening of the power of the soviets is the next stage in the weakening of the center.

National conflicts - the "scattering" of the republics, the parade of sovereignties:

a) 1988 - the opposition in the Baltic states is heading for an exit from the USSR. "Sajudis" in Lithuania, fronts in Latvia and Estonia (later they will win the elections).

b) 1988 - the beginning of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over the ownership of Nagorno-Karabakh. Great sacrifices, over 800 thousand refugees. The helplessness of the allied structures.

c) 1990 - the republics adopt the Declaration of Sovereignty (including Russia), declare the superiority of their laws over those of the Union. The first was Lithuania - on March 11, 1990, it declared sovereignty in violation of the USSR law on the procedure for secession of republics from the USSR.

The union center can no longer retain power in a democratic way and resorts to military force: Tbilisi - September 1989, Baku - January 1990, Vilnius and Riga - January 1991, Moscow - August 1991. In addition - ethnic conflicts in Central Asia (1989-1990): Ferghana, Dushanbe, Osh, etc.

The last straw that prompted the party and state leadership of the USSR to act was the threat of signing a new Union Treaty, which was worked out during negotiations between representatives of the republics in Novo-Ogaryovo.

Novoogarevsky process:

1990-1991 - discussion of a new Union Treaty (the first option: broad powers of the republics while maintaining a single state).

On April 23, 1991, Gorbachev held talks with the leaders of nine union republics on the issue of a new union treaty. All participants in the talks supported the idea of creating a renewed Union and signing such an agreement. His project called for the creation of the Union of Sovereign States (USG), as a democratic federation of equal Soviet sovereign republics. Changes were planned in the structure of government and administration, the adoption of a new Constitution, and a change in the electoral system. The signing of the agreement was scheduled for August 20, 1991.

Some of the republics refused to sign even this rather liberal treaty and announced the creation of independent states (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Moldova, Georgia and Armenia).

August putsch of 1991 and its failure.

main reason The failure of the coup d'état was the determination of the masses to defend their political freedoms.

The final stage of the collapse of the USSR. (September - December 1991).

On December 1, 1991, more than 80% of the population of Ukraine spoke in favor of the independence of their republic.

December 8, 1991 - Belovezhskaya agreement (Yeltsin, Kravchuk, Shushkevich): the termination of the Union Treaty of 1922 was announced and the end of activity state structures former Union. Russia, Ukraine and Belarus have reached an agreement on the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). The three states invited all former republics to join the CIS.

December 21, 1991 - at a meeting in Alma-Ata, where, like at the previous meeting, Gorbachev was not invited, 8 republics joined the CIS. A Declaration was adopted on the cessation of the existence of the USSR and on the principles of the activities of the CIS. On December 25, Gorbachev announced the resignation of the functions of the president in connection with the disappearance of the state. In 1994, Azerbaijan and Georgia joined the CIS.

On May 15, 1992, the Collective Security Treaty of the CIS member countries was signed in Tashkent (it was signed by 6 countries, later Belarus, Kyrgyzstan and Georgia joined the agreement).

In 1992, the withdrawal of Russian troops from neighboring countries began: the Baltic states, Georgia, Moldova, Tajikistan and Armenia. At the same time, military conflicts that flared up in a number of republics former USSR(Georgia, Moldova, Tajikistan), forced the Russian leadership to leave part of their troops on their territory as peacekeeping forces.

After joining the leadership of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation at the end of 1995, E.M. Primakov, Russia's relations with the CIS countries have become more fruitful. On March 29, 1996 Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan signed an Agreement on the settlement of integration in the economic and humanitarian fields. In May 1997, Russia and Ukraine signed the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership.

On April 2, 1996, the “Treaty on the Formation of the Community of Belarus and Russia” was signed in Moscow, which provided for the re-establishment in 1996-1997. common economic and financial space. On April 2, 1997, the Community was transformed into the Union of Russia and Belarus, and on May 23, the Charter of the Union was signed. On December 8, 1999, the “Treaty on the Establishment of a Union State” was signed, which was adopted by the State Duma on December 22, 1999 and ratified on January 2, 2000. Russian President V.V. Putin.

37. Russia after the collapse of the USSR: economic and political development.

After the events of August 1991. The Russian leadership took control of the allied ministries and departments. Political puppets were appointed to replace the ministers arrested in the “case of the GKChP”, formally heading them until the collapse of the USSR. By decree of the President of the RSFSR Yeltsin on November 6, 1991, the CPSU was banned, and its property was confiscated.

However, the position of the Russian leadership largely depended on the position of the republican leaders. Some of them, the most ambitious, took advantage of the situation to strengthen the autonomy of their regions. In Russian regions and districts, Yeltsin's decrees appointed heads of local administrations.
The President of Russia took over the leadership of the government, but the economic block of issues was under the jurisdiction of First Deputy Prime Minister E.T. Gaidar, who became the conductor of the so-called. "shock therapy".

On September 21, 1993, B. Yeltsin signed a decree on a phased constitutional reform, which provided for the dissolution of the Congress of People's Deputies of the Russian Federation, the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation and the holding of elections on December 11-12 of the same year to a new body of representative power - the State Duma. In fact, Yeltsin carried out a coup d'état. The leadership of the Supreme Council and the Constitutional Court recognized the president's actions as unconstitutional.

By a series of decrees, Yeltsin everywhere stopped the activities of the Soviets as organs state power. Under the new Constitution, approved by referendum, Russia was declared a presidential republic with unusually broad powers of the head of state. Legislative power was represented by the Federal Assembly of two chambers: the Federation Council of the heads of Russian regions appointed by the president and the elected leaders of the republics and the State Duma, whose deputies were elected by popular vote. Executive power was to be exercised by the government, whose head was approved by the Duma on the proposal of the President.
The elections to the Duma, which were won by Y. Gaidar's pro-government Russia's Choice bloc, and the approval of the new Constitution contributed to the stabilization of the internal political situation. At the suggestion of the presidential administration, the State Duma adopted a decision on an amnesty for persons who were under investigation in connection with the events of 1991-1993. In April 1994 various political forces signed the so-called "Contract of Public Consent".
As early as March 31, 1992, the Federal Treaty was signed in Moscow, which determined the principles of relations between the federal center and the republics. Under this treaty, the national republics within Russia received a number of significant advantages over Russian regions. However, even in this form the agreement was not signed by the leaders of Tatarstan and Chechnya.
At the heart of the contradictions was the struggle for the former union property. Relations between the federal center and Chechnya, formed in the fall of 1991 as a result of the division of the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, developed especially intensely. The President of Chechnya, D. Dudayev, initiated the seizure of military warehouses of the former Soviet Army, liquidated the local departments of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and the FSB, and achieved the withdrawal of parts of the Russian army from the republic. The possibility of negotiations with Dudayev B. Yeltsin was missed. The bet was made on the intervention of law enforcement agencies. The military operation turned out to be poorly prepared, the leaders of the state lacked unity of will. In January 1997, A. Maskhadov was elected president of "Ichkeria" and he set a course for the republic's complete independence from Russia.
The economic policy of Yeltsin-Gaidar, the so-called. “shock therapy” included the following areas: 1. One-time introduction of free prices from January 1992, which was supposed to determine the market value of goods, eliminate the shortage of goods and introduce a mechanism for competition between enterprises and force people to “make money”; 2. Trade liberalization, which was supposed to speed up trade; 3. Privatization of state-owned enterprises and housing in order to create a layer of owners and establish incentives for entrepreneurial activity; 4.Reformation of the banking system, the formation of private banks in order to create conditions for a more efficient circulation of the money supply.
"Recipes" for the recovery of the economy were developed taking into account the opinion of foreign consultants. The projects of Yeltsin-Gaidar contained a significant element of adventurism, lightness, social demagogy and outright lies.
The release of prices with the complete monopolization of the goods market spurred inflation - in 1992 prices increased 36 times! Savings deposits of the population have depreciated. Industrial and agricultural enterprises, which lost their working capital. The debt crisis shook the economy. Instead of developing commodity-money relations in Russia, a step was taken back to primitive barter.
Trade liberalization has had more favorable effects. Commodity exchanges, wholesale and small-scale wholesale markets began to emerge. Large and small traders - "shuttle traders" filled the market with relatively cheap foreign goods. Large capitals began to take shape in the sphere of trade in alcoholic and tobacco products.
In the autumn of 1992, a campaign was launched to privatize state-owned enterprises in industry and trade. Each citizen received a privatization check - a voucher, which later could be exchanged for shares of privatized enterprises or entrusted with a check to a private check investment fund /ChIF In general, the voucher campaign can be called the largest scam of the twentieth century.
One of the most cynical methods of transferring large objects of state property into private hands for a pittance was the so-called. mortgage auctions. With the help of dishonest government officials, including ministers. oil and mining enterprises were distributed, whose export products brought billions in foreign currency profits. This is how the Russian billionaires M. Khodorkovsky, V. Potanin, R. Abramovich and others made their fortunes.
The emergence of a network of private banks did not contribute to the formation of a stable capital market.

The overwhelming majority of the population was ruined. A strong blow was dealt to industrial and agricultural production. For 5 years / 1992-1997 / according to official estimates, production decreased by 50%. The so-called. "defense". During the years of "reforms" there was practically no renewal of fixed production assets. The technological backlog of Russian industry from the West has intensified. The Russian manufacturer was "crushed" by cheap foreign imports. The dependence of the domestic economy on fluctuations in energy prices on the world market has become extremely intensified.
The instability of the political and economic situation in the country, the constant changes in economic conditions contributed to the constant outflow of capital abroad. Large borrower from international credit institutions, Russia in
1990s became at the same time a donor to the world, primarily Western, economy. According to official estimates, the export of capital from Russia amounted to 2 billion dollars a month. At the same time, the annual budget of the country in the mid-1990s. did not exceed 20-25 billion dollars.
Social Consequences economic reforms turned out to be extremely difficult for the majority of the population of the country. Even according to official estimates, 30% of families were below the poverty line. At the same time, wage growth was actually “frozen” for many years.
A sharp gap in the level of people's incomes, weakness and inconsistency in the actions of law enforcement agencies contributed to an increase in the number of offenses and crimes. The number of serious and especially serious crimes has increased. Russia today remains one of the largest prison empires in the world.
The reduction of budget financing of the healthcare sector, the virtual elimination of the medical examination system, the high cost of medicines, the deterioration of living and working conditions contributed to the growth of the so-called. social diseases. The incidence rate of many of them today is on the verge of an epidemic.
The collapse of the USSR in the early 1990s made significant changes in the balance of power in the international arena.
Immediately after the liquidation of the USSR, Russia, with the consent of other CIS members, declared itself the legal successor of the former Union: it pledged to comply with previously signed international treaties, assumed the total external debt of the USSR, and confirmed its membership in international organizations.
From the second half of December 1991 new Russia recognized by more than 40 states of the world. The representative of Russia took the place of the USSR in the UN Security Council. However, the geopolitical conditions for the country's development have noticeably deteriorated: Russia has lost many military-strategic facilities that previously ensured the country's security. Russia did not have a single oil terminal left, significant sections of oil and gas pipelines that allow exporting these types of resources abroad were at the disposal of governments neighboring countries relations with which did not always develop favorably.
The declaration on the formation of the CIS was only the beginning of a long process of settling the mutual relations of the former Soviet republics. Significant difficulties were generated by the need to divide the former unified energy systems, railways, pipelines. There were problems of division of foreign property of the USSR, delimitation of borders, etc.
The monetary reform of 1993 in Russia led to the disintegration of the common ruble space in the CIS, which caused damage to common interests. The agreement on the creation of an economic union of the CIS countries of the same year set the stage-by-stage formation of a common market, a single customs and currency area as priority tasks.
The economic and military-political weakness of Russia forced the leaders of the CIS states to look for new foreign policy and foreign economic guidelines. Only the new government of Belarus took a special position /A. Lukashenko/, giving priority to the development of relations with Russia. It is very difficult to develop relations with Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan. Relations with Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan are on the periphery foreign policy Russian Federation.
developed inconsistently in the 1990s. relations with the United States and members of the NATO bloc as a whole. “Relapses of Cold War Thinking”/V. Putin / turned out to be stronger on the western side. In April 2000, Russia ratified the Russian-American START-2 treaty, which leaves the two powers with 3,500 nuclear warheads each. However, the expansion of the NATO bloc to the east requires Russian diplomacy to find measures adequate to the situation.
Negative influence Russia's international position was affected by the first and second Chechen campaigns. Only major terrorist acts in the world for last years outlined a trend towards the formation of a coordinated position between Russia and the West.
The main tasks of the domestic and foreign policy of the government of V.V. Putin (elected President of Russia in March 2000) were political and economic stabilization in the country, strengthening the vertical of executive power, overcoming separatist aspirations in the regions, ensuring Russia's security and increasing its authority in the international arena.
In the course of the anti-terrorist operation in Chechnya, the restoration of constitutional order was ensured throughout the republic. Further steps towards returning to normal life were the general presidential and parliamentary elections, the creation of conditions for the return of refugees, the provision of material assistance to those affected by conflicts, and the restoration of the national economic complex.
In 2000, 7 federal districts were formed in the Russian Federation, headed by representatives appointed by the President. Accelerated work to bring local legislation in line with the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Later, a new procedure for the formation of regional authorities was approved, and a reform of local self-government was launched. The role is rising political parties in the life of society, the legal framework for the activities of non-profit public organizations.
Military reform is being carried out. By 2008, it is planned to reduce the period of conscription service to one year, the right of the conscript to an alternative military service. Expenses for the material support of military personnel are steadily growing. Lessons learned from the disaster of the nuclear submarine "Kursk". Conventional weapons are being modernized, nuclear deterrence forces are being improved, and the military space complex is being revived.
Legislation is being improved. The Civil Code, the Labor Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Land Code, etc. have been approved. Serious measures are being taken to improve the efficiency of law enforcement agencies.
Reformation in the field of economy and social relations continued. Tax, land, and pension reforms are being carried out; in 2005, a law on the monetization of benefits was enacted. On September 5, 2005, the main national projects in the field of housing construction, health care, education, and agriculture were identified. Improving the quality of life of citizens was for the first time declared a priority of state policy. The task of combating poverty remains urgent. Economic stabilization has been ensured, ambitious plans have been outlined to double GDP by 2010. Russia is steadily moving towards WTO accession. The banking system is being successfully reformed, and the country's external debt is being repaid at an accelerated pace.

The foreign policy and foreign economic activity of the Russian leadership has noticeably intensified. More effective interstate formations have been created in the space of the amorphous CIS. New threats objectively contribute to the strengthening of cooperation between the Russian Federation and Western countries. In 2006, Russia takes over the chairmanship of the so-called. "Eight". Economic integration is growing. Major international projects are being implemented (Blue Stream, the construction of the North European Gas Pipeline).
Russia's positions in the arms market and in nuclear energy are still strong, and there are prospects for cooperation in the development of oil and gas fields and global energy in general. Work continued to strengthen the borders of the Russian Federation.

Prerequisites for the collapse of the USSR: Here recognized factors:1) A deep socio-economic crisis that engulfed the entire country. The crisis led to the rupture of economic ties, gave rise to the desire of the republics to "save themselves alone." 2) The destruction of the Soviet system - a sharp weakening of the center 3) The collapse of the CPSU 4). Exacerbation of interethnic relations. National conflicts undermined the state. unity, becoming one of the reasons for the destruction of the union statehood. Factors, presence and role of which are the subject of discussion: 1) The subversive activities of foreign intelligence services and the "fifth column" within the country. 2) Republican separatism and political ambition of local leaders 3) General historical processes - "all empires will one day collapse" - but whether the USSR was an empire in the usual sense of the word is another question. The dynamics of the weakening of the center: the Council pushed the party to the margins political life, the president did not allow the monopoly of the soviets, the national republics ceased to need a union president, the union collapsed

B. The collapse of the CPSU, cementing the forces of the political system, the entire union statehood, went not only along the ideological, but also along the national line. a) the end of 89-90. - withdrawal from the CPSU of the Baltic Communist Partiesb) 90 - creation of the Communist Party of the RSFSR (as part of the CPSU) c) 90-91. - multi-party system. In January 1991, a Democratic Congress (47 parties and movements from 12 republics) was held in Kharkov, which proposed expressing no confidence in the government and the president, boycotting the referendum on March 17 and dissolving the USSR. B. The weakening of the power of the soviets- the next stage of weakening the center (material in ticket 18) D. National conflicts, "scattering" of the republics, a parade of sovereignty) 1988 - the opposition in the Baltic states is heading for an exit from the USSR. "Sajudis" in Lithuania, fronts in Latvia and Estonia (later they will win the elections), b) 1988 - the beginning of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict over the ownership of Nagorno-Karabakh. Great sacrifices, over 800 thousand refugees. The helplessness of the union structures. c) 1990 - the republics adopt the Declaration of Sovereignty (including Russia), declare the superiority of their laws over the union ones. The first was Lithuania - on March 11, 1990, it declared sovereignty in violation of the USSR law on the procedure for the withdrawal of republics from the USSR. The union center can no longer hold power in a democratic way and resorts to military force -d) Tbilisi - Sept. 1989, Baku - Jan. 1990, Vilnius and Riga - Jan. 1991, Moscow - August 1991. In addition - interethnic conflicts in Central Asia (89-90 years): Fergana, Andijan, Dushanbe, Osh. D. Novoogorevsky process(by the name of Gorbachev's residence)1) 90-91. - Discussion of a new Union Treaty (first option: broad powers of the republics while maintaining a single state) Discussions on problems: a strong center - strong republics, or vice versa. 2) March 17, 1991 All-Union referendum: 76.4% of voters are in favor of preserving the USSR. 3) A new project of the renewed USSR - SSG (commonwealth of sovereign states - a confederation with the preservation of presidential power) E. Events of 19-21 August 1991("Word to the People")1) August 91 Gorbachev in Faros, the signing of a new Union Treaty is scheduled for August 202) August 18 A number of senior officials propose to Gorbachev to introduce a state of emergency throughout the country. The President refuses. 3) August 19 - The State Emergency Committee takes full power into its own hands (Yanaev, Pavlov, Pugo, Yazov, Starodubtsev, etc.) In an appeal to the country, they talked about preserving the Union and the socialist gains of the people. Troops are brought into Moscow4) August 19-20. The GKChP is inactive. Yeltsin organizes resistance. 5) Arrest of the GKChP, Gorbachev in Moscow. The reasons for the GKChP's indecisiveness, the nature of the "defense" of the White House, and Gorbachev's role in the events remain the subject of discussion. G. The final stage of the collapse of the USSR.(September - December 1991) 1) 5th Congress of People's Deputies (September 5, 91) announces a transitional period and surrenders its powers to the State Council of the USSR (the highest officials of the republics) and the Supreme Council. 2) September 9. - The State Council officially recognizes the independence of the Baltic states.

3) Attempts to revive the Noogorevsky process - 8 republics decided to sign a new union treaty of the republics. The process is delayed4) December 8 - Belovezhskaya agreement (Yeltsyn, Kravchuk, Shushkevich): the USSR ceases to exist, Russia, Ukraine and Belarus are united in the CIS. 5) December 21 Alma-Ata meeting of the leaders of 9 republics - Declaration on the termination of the existence of the USSR and on the principles of the CIS.

Until the end of 1991, Moldova and Azerbaijan joined the CIS, in total there are 11 states in the CIS (3 Baltic republics for 15 minutes) 6) Gorbachev resigned his powers. 7) On December 26, the Council of Republics and The Supreme Council(one of the chambers) officially recognized the dissolution of the USSR and self-destructed.

As perestroika developed, national problems began to acquire ever greater importance. Moreover, national contradictions and clashes were often artificially inflated by politicians from various camps who tried to use tension to solve certain problems.

With the beginning of democratization and the restoration of historical truth, the tension accumulated over many years was discharged in the rapidly growing centrifugal forces. Thus, the anniversary of the signing of the Soviet-German pact of 1939 (which for the first time in many years was in the center of attention of the press) became an occasion for mass demonstrations on August 23, 1987 in the capitals of the three Baltic republics. These speeches marked the beginning of a process that ended later with the declaration of independence of these republics.

Ethnic tensions arose in almost all the republics. She touched on a variety of issues, from the requirements for recognition of state status national language(formulated first in the Baltic republics, then in Ukraine, in Georgia, Moldova, Armenia, and, ultimately, as the movement expanded and deepened, put forward in other republics: the RSFSR, Belarus, Azerbaijan and the Muslim republics of Central Asia) until the return to the historical homeland of the deported peoples.

The national problems that came to the center of attention led to an aggravation of conflicts between the Russian "colonizers" and representatives of the "indigenous" nationalities (primarily in Kazakhstan and the Baltic states) or between neighboring nationalities (Georgians and Abkhazians, Georgians and Ossetians, Uzbeks and Tajiks, Armenians and Azerbaijanis). etc.). The conflict between Armenians and Azerbaijanis over Nagorno-Karabakh, which was annexed to Azerbaijan in 1923, took the most tragic forms, despite the Armenian majority of its population. In February 1988, the Armenians of this autonomous region within Azerbaijan officially demanded reunification with Armenia. Due to the ambiguous position of the union government and the resistance of the leadership of Azerbaijan, the conflict escalated, and the pogrom of Armenians carried out by the Azerbaijanis in Sumgayit became a prologue to a real war between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

In 1989 and especially in 1990-1991. there were bloody clashes in Central Asia (Fergana, Dushanbe, Osh and a number of other regions). National minorities, which included the Russian-speaking population, were especially affected. The region of intense ethnic armed conflicts was the Caucasus, primarily South Ossetia and Abkhazia. In 1990-1991 in South Ossetia, in essence, there was a real war in which only heavy artillery, aircraft and tanks were not used. Clashes, including with the use of firearms, also took place between various mountain peoples.

In the Baltic republics, in the Ukraine, in Georgia, the struggle for independence, for secession from the USSR, is taking sharp forms. In early 1990, after Lithuania declared its independence and negotiations over Nagorno-Karabakh stalled, it became clear that the central government was unable to use economic ties in the process of a radical revision of federal relations, which was the only way to prevent, or even to stop the collapse of the Soviet Union.

1. The death of the Russian empire and the formation of the USSR.

2. National politics in USSR.

3. The collapse of the USSR.

Perestroika, which began in 1985, politicized all spheres of the country's public life. Gradually, the true history of the USSR as a multinational state was recognized, interest arose in questions of interethnic relations, in the practice of solving the national question in the Soviet state. One of the consequences of this process was an explosive surge of national self-consciousness. The charge of violence, once directed at the national regions, returned to the center, taking on a clear anti-Russian orientation. The long-term press of fear was leaving, and nationalist slogans became the most effective way not only to put pressure on the central authorities, but also to distance the increasingly stronger national elites from the weakening Moscow.

Developing in the USSR by the end of the 1980s. the socio-political atmosphere in many respects resembled the situation of the period of disintegration Russian Empire. The weakening of autocratic power at the beginning of the 20th century, and then its elimination by the February Revolution, stimulated the centrifugal aspirations of the heterogeneous parts of the empire. The national question in tsarist Russia was for a long time"blurred": the differences between the peoples of the empire took place, rather, not on a national basis, but on a religious basis; national differences were replaced by class affiliation. In addition, a split along social lines was more clearly expressed in Russian society, which also muffled the acuteness of the national question as such. It does not follow from this that national oppression did not exist in Russia. Its most striking expression was Russification and resettlement policy. Solving with the help of the last problem of the land shortage of European peasants, not only Russians, but also Ukrainians, Belarusians, some peoples of the Volga region, Orthodox by religion, tsarism significantly oppressed other peoples, primarily in Siberia, on Far East, in Kazakhstan, in the foothills of the North Caucasus. In addition, some peoples of the empire, such as the Poles, could not come to terms with the lost by them in the second half of the XVIII century. own national statehood. Therefore, it is no coincidence that in the late XIX - early XX centuries. national and national liberation movements begin to gain strength, which in some cases acquire a distinctly religious coloring, the ideas of pan-Islamism find their adherents among the Muslim peoples of the empire: the Volga Tatars, the Transcaucasian Tatars (Azerbaijanis), in the Central Asian protectorates.

The usual border of the Russian Empire took shape only by the end of the 19th century. it was a “young” country that had just found its geographical boundaries. And this is its essential difference from the Ottoman or Austro-Hungarian empires, which at the beginning of the twentieth century. were on the verge of natural decay. But they were united by one thing - these empires had a military-feudal character, that is, they were created mainly by military force, and economic ties, a single market were already formed within the framework of the established empires. Hence the general looseness, weak connection between the regions of the empire and political instability. In addition, these empires included different peoples and cultures, for example, the Russian Empire included territories with completely different economic and cultural types, other spiritual landmarks. Lithuanians were still guided by Catholicism in its Polish version: long-standing ties with Poland and the memory of the once united Polish-Lithuanian state, the Commonwealth, affected. Naturally, in the Russian part of Poland itself, the historical memory of the local population was even stronger. Latvians and Estonians did not lose spiritual and cultural ties with the Balto-Protestant area - Germany and Scandinavia. The population of these territories still perceived itself as part of Europe, and the power of tsarism was perceived as national oppression. Although the centers of the Islamic world - Turkey and Persia - remained outside the Russian Empire, this did not lead to a significant change in the cultural and spiritual orientation of the population of the Central Asian and, partially, the Caucasian regions, to the loss of their former preferences.

Output for central government there was one - the inclusion in the ruling elite of the nobility of the conquered or annexed lands. The all-Russian census of 1897 showed that 57% of the Russian hereditary nobility called Russian their native language. The rest - 43% of the nobility (hereditary!), Being in the ruling elite of Russian society and the state, still perceived themselves as Polish or Ukrainian gentry, Baltic barons, Georgian princes, Central Asian beks, etc.

Hence the main feature of the Russian Empire: it did not have a clear national (and geographical) distinction between the Russian metropolis proper and colonies of other ethnicities, as, for example, in the British Empire. The oppressive layer almost half consisted of representatives of the conquered and annexed peoples. Such a powerful inclusion of the local nobility in the ruling structures of the Russian state to some extent ensured the stability of the empire. The policy pursued by such a state, as a rule, did not have an overt Russophile orientation, that is, it did not proceed from the interests of the Russian part of the population of the empire itself. Moreover, all the forces of the people were constantly spent on military expansion, on the extensive development of new territories, which could not but affect the state of the people - the "conqueror". On this occasion, the famous Russian historian V.O. Klyuchevsky wrote: half of XIX v. the territorial expansion of the state is in inverse proportion to the development of the internal freedom of the people ... as the territory expanded, along with the growth of the external strength of the people, its internal freedom became more and more constrained. In the field, constantly increasing due to conquest, the scope of power increased, but the uplifting force of the people's spirit decreased. Outwardly, the successes of the new Russia resemble the flight of a bird, which the whirlwind carries and throws up beyond the strength of its wings. The state was plump, and the people were sickly ”(Klyuchevsky V.O. Course of Russian history. M., 1991. T. 3. S. 328).

After its collapse, the Russian Empire left a number of its unresolved problems to the Soviet Union that arose on its basis: the different economic and cultural orientation of the peoples and territories that were part of it, which ensured the permanently increasing influence of various cultural and religious centers on them; the weakness of economic ties between its various parts, which gave impetus to the start of centrifugal processes, especially when the central government was weakened and the economic situation worsened; the unfading historical memory of the conquered peoples, capable of bursting into emotions at any moment; often hostile attitude towards the Russian people, with whom national oppression was associated.

But even in the summer of 1917, apart from the Polish, Finnish, part of the Ukrainian nationalists, not a single national movement raised the question of secession from Russia, limiting itself to the demands of national-cultural autonomy. The process of the collapse of the empire intensified after October 25–26, and especially after the adoption on November 2, 1917 by the Soviet government of the “Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia”. The main postulates of the document were: the equality of all peoples and the right of nations to self-determination, up to secession and the formation of independent states. In December 1917, the Soviet government recognized the state independence of Ukraine and Finland. The ideas of national self-determination were very popular in the international social-democratic movement, and were not supported by everyone, even by recognized leaders. According to Rosa Luxembourg, the translation of this provision into real politics threatened Europe with medieval anarchy if each ethnic group demanded the creation of its own state. She wrote: “From all sides, nations and small ethnic groups are claiming their rights to form states. Decayed corpses, filled with the desire for rebirth, rise from centuries-old graves, and peoples who did not have their own history, who did not know their own statehood, are filled with the desire to create their own state. On the nationalist Mount Walpurgis Night, leaders of national movements more often used this call for national self-determination to pursue their own political ambitions. Questions about whether national independence is useful for the people themselves, for their neighbors, for social progress, or whether there are economic conditions for the emergence of a new state and whether it is capable of pursuing its own state policy, not subject to the whims of other countries, as a rule, were not raised and weren't discussed.

For the Bolsheviks, the thesis about the right of nations to self-determination was an important argument for attracting to their side at least some of the leaders of various national movements. It sharply contrasted with the slogan of the white movement about "one and indivisible Russia" and became a successful tactic of Bolshevik propaganda in the national regions. In addition, the realization of the right of nations to self-determination not only shattered, but exploded from within the entire system of the administrative structure of Russia and dealt a final blow to the non-Bolshevik local authorities. Thus, the provincial principle of organizing the political space of the country, which provided equal rights to citizens regardless of their nationality and place of residence, was eliminated.

The empire collapsed. On its ruins in 1917-1919. independent states emerged, recognized by the world community as sovereign. In the Baltic States - Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia; in Transcaucasia - Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan; in Central Asia, the Emirate of Bukhara and the Khanate of Khiva restored their independence; Ukrainian and Belarusian republics emerged. Centrifugal processes affected not only the national outskirts. A phenomenon similar to national movements in the Russian regions proper was regionalism. Usually, it is understood as socio-political movements, expressed in the protest of individual regions against the redistributive actions of the central bodies or those that do not support their political orientation. In 1917–1918 the territory of Russia was covered with a grid of "independent" republics independent of the Bolshevik Moscow: Orenburg, Siberian, Chita, Kuban, Black Sea, etc.

Thus, for the Soviet state, the beginning Civil War meant not only the struggle for the preservation of Soviet power, but also the policy of collecting the lands of the disintegrated empire. The end of the war on the territory of Great Russia proper and Siberia led to the concentration of the Fifth Army on the border with Central Asia, and the Eleventh Army approached the border with Transcaucasia. In January 1920, the Transcaucasian Regional Committee of the RCP(b) appealed to the working people of independent Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan to prepare armed uprisings against their governments and appeal to Soviet Russia and the Red Army in order to restore Soviet power in Transcaucasia. Accusing the governments of Georgia and Azerbaijan of cooperating with A.P. Denikin, the Eleventh Army crossed the border. In February 1920, an anti-government uprising broke out in Georgia at the call of the Military Revolutionary Committee, then the rebels turned to Soviet Russia for help, and the Red Army supported them. The democratic government of the independent Georgian Republic was overthrown. It was nationalistic in character, although it was covered by social-democratic (Menshevik) slogans. In the spring of 1920 in Baku, the Bolsheviks were able to raise an armed uprising against the Musavatist government, formed by the bourgeois Muslim party. In Armenia, the pro-Bolshevik uprising was defeated, but the outbreak of war with Turkey created favorable conditions for the entry of the Red Army into Armenian territory and the establishment of Soviet power. Three Soviet republics arose in Transcaucasia, which in 1922 merged into the Transcaucasian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (TSFSR).

Events developed in a similar way in Central Asia - the uprising of the working people and the help of the Red Army. After a successful anti-Khan uprising, troops of the Fifth Red Army were brought into Khiva, and in February 1920 the Khorezm People's Soviet Republic was formed. In August of the same year, there was an uprising against the Emir of Bukhara. In September Bukhara fell and the Bukhara People's Soviet Republic was proclaimed. Soviet power was finally established in Turkestan as well.

It should be noted that the Bolshevik leadership did not have a scientifically developed national policy as an independent program: all its actions were subordinated to the main task - building a socialist society. The national question was perceived by the leaders of the party and the state as a particular aspect of the class struggle, as its derivative. It was believed that with the solution of the problems of the socialist revolution, national problems would automatically be resolved.

Reflecting on the state structure of the future Soviet state, V. I. Lenin wrote to S. G. Shaumyan in 1913: “We are against the federation in principle, it weakens economic ties, it is an unsuitable type for one state.” V. I. Lenin stood on the positions of the unitary nature of the future state until the autumn of 1917, and only the search for allies of the proletariat in the socialist revolution pushed the leader to a compromise. At the III Congress of Soviets (January 1918) the "Declaration of the Rights of the Working and Exploited People" was adopted, which fixed the federal structure of the Russian Soviet Republic. Interestingly, in an interview given by I.V. Stalin in the spring of 1918, Poland, Finland, Transcaucasia, Ukraine, Siberia were considered among the possible subjects of the Russian Federation. At the same time, I. V. Stalin emphasized the temporality of federalism in Russia, when "... forced tsarist unitarism will be replaced by voluntary federalism ... which is destined to play a transitional role to future socialist unitarism." This thesis was fixed in the Second Party Program adopted in 1919: "The federation is a transitional form to the complete unity of the working people of different nations." Consequently, the Russian Federative Republic, on the one hand, was conceived as a new political form of unification of all the territories of the former Russian Empire, on the other hand, the federal structure was considered by the party and its leaders as a temporary phenomenon on the way to "socialist unitarism", as a tactical compromise with the national liberation movements.

The principles of the organization of the state became administrative-territorial and national-territorial, which laid the foundation for political, socio-economic inequality between different regions, ensuring the emergence of not only nationalism, but also regionalism in the future.

In the summer of 1919, V. I. Lenin came, as it seemed to him, to a compromise regarding the future state structure: to a combination of the unitary principle and federalism - the republics organized according to the Soviet type should form the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, within which autonomies are possible. It turned out that the basis of the USSR was the federal principle, and the union republics were unitary entities. Later, in a letter to L. B. Kamenev, V. I. Lenin wrote that “... Stalin (who remained a supporter of a unitary Russian state, which, on the rights of autonomies, would include the rest Soviet republics) agreed to the amendment: “to say instead of “joining the RSFSR” - “unification together with the RSFSR” into the Union of Soviet Republics of Europe and Asia”. And further: “The spirit of concession is understandable: we recognize ourselves as equal in rights with the Ukrainian SSR and others, and together and on an equal footing with them we enter a new union, a new federation ...” (V. I. Lenin. Full. Collected works. Vol. 45 pp. 212).

On December 30, 1922, four republics - the Ukrainian SSR, the BSSR, the ZSFSR and the RSFSR signed a union treaty. In many ways, the electoral system, the principle of organizing power, the definition of the main authorities and their functions repeated the provisions of the Russian Constitution of 1918, and the agreement became the basis for the first Federal Constitution, approved by the II Congress of Soviets of the USSR on January 31, 1924. It stated a single simultaneous citizenship, voluntary the nature of the unification, the immutability of the borders, for the most part given without taking into account the real resettlement of peoples, and also the declarative right to “exit from the union state” was preserved, the mechanism for such an “exit” remained out of sight of the legislators and was not defined.

In the special committees and commissions involved in the preparation of the new document, opposing positions clashed on issues of the powers of the union and republican departments, the competence of the central people's commissariats, and the advisability of establishing a single Soviet citizenship. The Ukrainian Bolsheviks insisted that each individual republic should be given broader sovereign rights. Some Tatar communists demanded that the autonomous republics (Tataria, in the form of an autonomous Soviet socialist republic, was part of the RSFSR) should also be elevated to the rank of allied ones. Georgian representatives advocated that the three Transcaucasian republics join the USSR separately, and not in the form of a Transcaucasian federation. Thus, already at the stage of discussion of the first Union Constitution, its weaknesses were clearly identified, and unresolved contradictions served as a breeding ground for the aggravation of the interethnic situation in the second half of the 1980s.

According to the Constitution of 1924, the central government was endowed with very extensive prerogatives: five people's commissariats were only allied. The GPU also remained under central control. The other five people's commissariats had union-republican status, that is, they existed both in the Center and in the republics. The rest of the people's commissariats, such as agriculture, education, health, social security, etc., were initially exclusively republican in nature. The orientation laid down in party documents to give the union state a unitary content over time led to a gradual increase in the importance of the central (union) authorities, in particular through an increase in the number of the latter. On the eve of the collapse of the USSR, there were about 60 (instead of the original 5) union ministries. The latter reflected the process of centralization of power and the practice of solving virtually all the problems of the union republics in the Center. The reverse side of this phenomenon was the reduction of their real independence.

In 1923–1925 the process of national-territorial demarcation in Central Asia took place. The features of this region were, firstly, in the traditional absence of clear territorial boundaries between the khanates and the emirate; secondly, in the interspersed residence of the Turkic-speaking and Iranian-speaking ethnic groups. The main principles of the national-territorial delimitation were the process of identifying titular nations, whose name was given to the new national-territorial formation, and the geographical definition of the boundaries of the new Soviet republics. The Bukhara and Khorezm People's Republics, formerly part of the RSFSR and renamed "socialist", were merged, and the Uzbek SSR was formed on their basis. In 1925, she, as well as the Turkmen SSR, entered the USSR as union republics.

The national-territorial demarcation in Central Asia took the form of a mild "ethnic cleansing". Initially, the titular nations did not make up the majority of the population in "their" republics. For example, as part of the Uzbek SSR, the Tajik Autonomous Region was formed as an autonomy, but in such major cities like Bukhara and Samarkand, Tajiks (an Iranian-speaking ethnic group) made up the majority of the population. But already in the 1920s. in the Bukhara People's Soviet Republic, teaching in schools was translated from Tajik into Uzbek. In the commissariats and other authorities, a fine of 5 rubles was introduced for each case of appeal in the Tajik language. As a result of such actions, the proportion of Tajiks was rapidly decreasing. In Samarkand from 1920 to 1926. the number of Tajiks decreased from 65,824 to 10,700. Considering that the civil war had ended by this time, it can be assumed that most of the Tajiks switched to the Uzbek language (which was easy to do, since bilingualism existed in Central Asia) and later, with the introduction of passports, changed their nationality. Those who did not want to do this were forced to migrate from Uzbekistan to their autonomy. Thus, the principle of the forcible creation of mono-ethnic union republics was realized.

The extraction process itself autonomous entities was of an extremely arbitrary nature and often proceeded not from the interests of ethnic groups, but was subordinated to the political conjuncture. This was especially evident in the definition of autonomies in Transcaucasia. In 1920, the Revolutionary Committee of Azerbaijan recognized the territory of Nakhichevan and Zanzegur districts as part of Armenia in an Appeal and Declaration, and the right to self-determination was recognized for Nagorno-Karabakh. In March 1921, when the Soviet-Turkish agreement was signed, the Nakhichevan autonomy, where half of the population was Armenians and which did not even have a common border with Azerbaijan, was recognized as part of Azerbaijan under pressure from Turkey. At a meeting of the Caucasian Bureau of the Central Committee of the RCP (b) on July 4, 1921, a decision was made to join the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region to the Armenian Republic. A little later, on the direct instructions of I.V. Stalin, Nagorno-Karabakh, in which Armenians made up 95% of the population, was transferred to Azerbaijan.

In the 1930s nation-building in the USSR continued. According to the Constitution of 1936, the USSR included 11 union republics and 33 autonomies. The Kazakh SSR and the Kirghiz SSR left the RSFSR; back in 1929, the Tajik autonomy was transformed into a union republic; the ZSFSR also collapsed, and three union republics emerged from it as independent ones - Armenian, Azerbaijan and Georgian. After the implementation of the secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in 1939, the reunification of Western Ukraine and the Ukrainian SSR, Western Belarus and the BSSR took place. Bessarabia, torn away from Romania, merged with the Moldavian autonomy (which was part of the Ukrainian SSR), and in August 1940 the Moldavian SSR arose, which became part of the USSR. In the summer of 1940, the three Baltic republics did the same - the Lithuanian SSR, LatSSR, and the ESSR. In the autumn of 1939, the Soviet-Finnish war began, and in 1940 the Karelian-Finnish SSR was formed, which did not last long. After its elimination, the number of union republics (15) remained unchanged until the collapse of the USSR. In the early 1940s The USSR, with the exception of Finland and part of Poland, was restored within the framework of the collapsed Russian Empire.

Evaluating the Constitution of 1936, I. V. Stalin noted that such a state had been created, the collapse of which was impossible, since the exit of one of its parts leads to the death of all. The role of original detonators was assigned to autonomies, which were part of many union republics. This forecast was fully justified in the second half of the 1980s, when it was the autonomies who raised the question of their equality with the union republics, and then the collapse of the USSR followed.

The thirties and forties passed in the national regions under the banner of collectivization, industrialization and cultural revolution. There was an alignment of national economies. This was accompanied by the destruction of the traditional way of life, the imposition of a single Soviet (not Russian!) standard. A system of redistribution of financial, material and human resources arose in favor of the least industrially developed regions and, above all, the national outskirts. For this, the map was even redrawn: Rudny Altai, traditionally developed by Russians since the 18th century, was transferred to the Kazakh SSR and became the basis for creating a local industrial base. Russia was a natural donor. Despite the massive assistance, industrialization in Central Asia and the North Caucasus hardly changed the economic and cultural way of the local population, which has thousands of years of tradition, their orientation towards the values of the Islamic world.

Collectivization, accompanied by the creation of monocultural economies and also the destruction of the usual way of life, in short term caused a powerful psychological stress, impoverishment, hunger, disease. Economic leveling was accompanied by interference in the spiritual sphere: atheistic propaganda was going on, the clergy were subjected to repressions. At the same time, it should be borne in mind that the Russians, who also retained many features of the traditional way of life, were subjected to powerful pressure from the Soviet authorities, and were also forced to turn from a rural population into townspeople in a short time.

The war years were accompanied by mass deportations of peoples suspected of betrayal. The beginning of this process was laid in the summer of 1941, when, after accusing the two million German people of an alleged betrayal, the Republic of Germans - the Volga region was liquidated, and all Germans were deported to the east of the country. In 1943–1944 mass migrations of other peoples of the European and Asian parts of the USSR were carried out. The accusations were standard: cooperation with the Nazis or sympathy for the Japanese. They were able to return to their native places, and even then not all of them, after 1956.

The "carrot" of national policy was "indigenization", that is, the direction to leading, responsible posts of people whose nationality was listed in the name of the republic. The conditions for obtaining education were facilitated for national cadres. Thus, in 1989, there were 9.7 graduate students among Russians per 100 scientific workers; Belarusians - 13.4; Kyrgyz - 23.9; Turkmen - 26.2 people. National cadres were guaranteed successful promotion up the career ladder. National identity "determined" the professional, mental, business qualities of people. In fact, the state itself introduced nationalism and fomented national strife. And even the appearance of a European-educated population in the national republics, the creation of modern industry and infrastructure, the international recognition of scientists and cultural figures from national regions was often perceived as something natural and did not contribute to the growth of trust between peoples, because totalitarian methods excluded the possibility of choice, were of a violent nature, and therefore rejected by society.

The logic of the development of perestroika processes raised the question of the pace of democratization of Soviet society, as well as the payment of each republic for socio-economic transformations. The question arose about the redistribution by the Center of federal revenues in favor of the least developed republics. At the I Congress of Deputies of the USSR (1989), the Baltic republics for the first time openly raised the issue of the relationship between the Central (Union) and republican authorities. The main requirement of the Baltic deputies was the need to provide the republics with greater independence and economic sovereignty. At the same time, options for republican self-supporting accounts were being worked out. But the question of greater independence of the republics rested on the problem of the pace of economic and political reforms (perestroika) in different national-cultural regions of the USSR. The Center has been inflexible in trying to unify these processes. The accelerated course of perestroika transformations in Armenia and the Baltic states was held back by the Center's slowness in the Central Asian region. Thus, the persisting cultural and economic heterogeneity of Soviet society, the different mentality of the peoples that made it up, objectively determined the different pace and depth of economic reforms and democratization. Attempts by the Center to “average” this process, to create a single model of transformation for the entire state, failed. By the winter of 1991, the Baltic republics raised the question of political sovereignty. Forceful pressure on them: the events in Vilnius in January 1991, provocations in Latvia and Estonia called into question the ability of the central government to continue the course towards the democratization and openness of Soviet society, proclaimed in April 1985.

Even earlier, at the beginning of 1988, the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region, which was part of Azerbaijan, announced national infringements. A week later, anti-Armenian pogroms in Sumgayit became a reaction to this. As a result, according to some reports, 32 people died, more than two hundred were injured. There was no serious reaction from either Baku or Moscow. This was the beginning of the ongoing Karabakh conflict. The next one, in 1989, brought new pogroms: in Novy Uzgen and Osh. Again, there was no response from the Center. Impunity provoked new massacres on ethnic grounds. The dynamics of the growth of hotbeds of interethnic tension shows that in December 1988 there were 15 of them in the Union, in March 1991 - 76, and a year later - 180. post-Soviet space. Gradually, a double standard began to manifest itself more clearly in resolving the issue of self-determination: this right became a privilege only for the union republics, but not for their autonomies. Although everyone recognized the arbitrary nature of the allocation of union and autonomous entities, sometimes the artificiality of their borders, nevertheless, through the actions of the central and republican authorities, a conviction was formed in the public mind that the demands of autonomies were “illegal”. Thus, it became obvious that the equality of peoples declared in the Constitution and the right of nations to self-determination are subject to political conjuncture.

An attempt to save the Union can be considered the holding of the All-Union referendum on the integrity of the Union on March 17, 1991, which no longer had any real consequences. In the spring and especially the summer of 1991, almost all the union republics held their own referenda, and the population voted for national independence. Thus, the results of the all-Union referendum were annulled. Another attempt to save the Union can be considered a change in position regarding the signing of a new Union Treaty. MS Gorbachev held repeated consultations with the heads of the republics. It seemed that this process could end with the conclusion of a new union treaty, the essence of which would be to redistribute functions between the central and republican authorities in favor of the latter. Thus, the USSR from a de facto unitary state had a chance to become a full-fledged federation. But this did not happen: the fragile process was interrupted by the events of August 1991. For the union republics, the victory of the putsch meant a return to the former unitary state and the end of democratic reforms. the limit of trust in the central government was exhausted, the Union collapsed.

The current collapse of the USSR, although in many ways reminiscent of the collapse of the Russian Empire, is qualitatively different. The Soviet Union was re-established within the empire through provocations and the use of military force, which is contrary to the principles of democracy, the adherence of which was declared by most of the new states. In the early 1920s the peoples who made up former empire, could still believe the new leadership of Moscow, who allegedly abandoned the imperial, unification policy. But the new existence within the framework of the Union did not solve the former national problems, it increased their number. The reasons for the explosion of nationalism in the USSR were also some results of the implemented national policy. The Soviet national policy led to the emergence of national self-consciousness and its strengthening among many ethnic groups that did not have it before. Having proclaimed the slogan of the destruction of the national division of mankind, the regime built and strengthened nations in the territories artificially defined by it. Nationality, enshrined in the passport, tied ethnic groups to a certain territory, dividing them into "indigenous people" and "strangers." Despite the subordinate position of the republics to the Center, they had the preconditions for an independent existence. During the Soviet period, a national elite was formed in them, national personnel were trained, “their own” territory was defined, and a modern economy was created. All this also contributed to the collapse of the USSR: the former Soviet republics could now do without cash receipts from the Center, especially since the Union treasury with the beginning of reforms very quickly became impoverished. In addition, some nations only during the years of Soviet power for the first time received their national statehood (first in the form of union republics, and after the collapse of the USSR - independent states: Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, etc.), not counting a short period of independence in 1917–1920 Their states are very young, there are no traditions of strong statehood, hence their desire to establish themselves and show their complete independence, primarily from Moscow.

The collapse of the Russian Empire, and later the USSR, quite logically fits into the general historical picture of global world changes: the 20th century. generally became a century of collapses of empires that arose in previous eras. One of the reasons for this process is modernization, the transition of many states to the industrial and post-industrial society. It is much easier to carry out economic and political transformations in culturally and mentally homogeneous societies. Then there are no problems of the pace and depth of transformations. our state, both in the early twentieth century and in the 1980s. was a conglomerate of various economic and cultural types and mentalities. In addition, although modernization in general enhances integration trends, they conflict with the growth of national self-consciousness, with the desire for national independence. In conditions of authoritarian or totalitarian regimes, infringement of national interests, this contradiction is inevitable. Therefore, as soon as the hoops of autocracy and totalitarianism were weakened and transformative, democratic tendencies intensified, the threat of the collapse of the multinational state also arose. And although the collapse of the USSR is largely natural, over the past 70 years, and over the previous centuries, the peoples living in the Eurasian space have accumulated a lot of experience living together. They have a lot general history, numerous human connections. Under favorable conditions, this can promote natural, albeit slow, integration. And it seems that the existence of the CIS is a step towards the common future of the peoples of the once united country.

In theory and practice, of great interest is the concrete historical experience of the implementation of the program on the national question, the corresponding national policy, the result of which was the establishment of new interethnic relations in the USSR.

In the Russian Empire, the national question was one of the most pressing issues of socio-political life.. Its significance, complexity and acuteness were due to the fact that non-Russian nationalities made up the majority of the population (57%), the ethnic structure of the population was unusually diverse (over 200 nations, nationalities, ethnic groups), the historically established relationships between peoples in many regions were very complex and confusing: the national outskirts were often at a pre-capitalist level of development and were characterized by extreme backwardness; interethnic contradictions and conflicts were often intertwined with religious ones. The official policy of the autocracy in the national question with a well-known tilt towards Great Russian sovereignty and the official ideology of “autocracy, Orthodoxy, nationality” stimulated, especially from the end of the 19th century, discontent among the peoples of local ethnic groups (Poles, Finns, Jews, etc.).

Solution of these the most pressing questions, including the problems of forming new relations between peoples, required a deep development of theoretical provisions, program tasks in all areas related to plans for socialist construction. The first legislative act of the Soviet government on the national question was the Declaration of the Rights of the Peoples of Russia. Subsequently, many other official documents on this issue were adopted.

One of the significant steps in solving the national question after the victory of the October Revolution was the creation by many peoples of their own national statehood.

In the process of self-determination, various forms of national statehood took shape: a union republic, an autonomous republic, an autonomous region, and a national district. took place and different forms administrative-territorial structure for densely residing ethnic minorities (rural, district, volost national councils). The bodies of the national republics and regions were built primarily from local people who knew the language, way of life, customs and customs of the respective peoples. Special laws were issued to ensure the use of the native language in all state bodies and in all institutions serving the local non-ethnic population and national minorities.

However, the division of a single multinational Russia into national-territorial formations was initially an unproductive, contradictory step. The division of the territory was carried out arbitrarily, it immediately contained contradictions that made themselves felt decades later. The republic-states, which received their names from the names of the indigenous nations, actually, according to the actual composition of the population, were polyethnic formations. In addition, different ethno-social communities received different degrees of sovereignization: some - the status of union republics, others - autonomous. Many peoples ended up in multi-stage subordination - autonomous republics were part of the union republics, autonomous regions were part of the territories, national districts were part of the territory or region.

In accordance with the principles of the proclaimed national policy Soviet government recognized the independence and the right to an independent state existence of Poland, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, which were previously part of the Russian Empire. Ukrainian, Belorussian, Azerbaijan and other Soviet republics were formed. Turkestan, Bashkir, Tatar, Chuvash, Mari, Udmurt, Karelian and other autonomous republics and regions were proclaimed.

The formation of the USSR in December 1922 was the triumph of Lenin's national policy. The further development of the multinational state followed the path of improving the national-state structure and national-state relations. If by the beginning of 1923 there were 33 national-state and national-territorial formations in the country, then by 1937 their number increased to 51. Among them were 11 union republics, 22 autonomous republics, 9 autonomous regions and 9 autonomous (national) districts.

At the center of the national policy of the Soviet state was Practical activities to overcome the enormous backwardness of many peoples of the country. To solve this most difficult task, accelerated growth rates of their economy and culture were ensured. If in the central industrial regions during the years of the first five-year plan (1928-1932) the volume of industrial production doubled, then in the national republics and regions - more than 3.5 times, and in the republics of Central Asia - almost 5 times. During the years of the first two five-year plans (1928-1937), the gross output of large-scale industry in the USSR as a whole increased 9 times, and in Kyrgyzstan - 94 times, in Tajikistan - 157 times. No less expressive were the achievements of the Cultural Revolution in the national republics. So, if in the early 1920s. national regions and republics lagged ten times behind the also low-literate regions of the center of the country in terms of literacy, by 1939 this level had come close to the average Union level.

Direct aid to the national republics played an important role in eliminating the actual inequality of peoples. Thus, for decades, the budgets of a number of Union republics were covered in their expenditure part mainly at the expense of all-Union subsidies. Numerous detachments of specialists, scientists, engineers, workers of higher education and other qualified personnel were sent to the national republics. In addition, representatives of indigenous peoples were enrolled in higher education institutions of the central cities of the country on preferential terms in the directions of the republics. In the republics themselves, a network of their own universities was created, scientific centers. Of great importance was the process of indigenization of state bodies and their apparatus in the national republics. For 56 previously non-literate peoples, writing was created, it became possible to conduct schooling in their native language.

As a result of the enormous creative activity and the outstanding role of the Russian people, by the 1970s. levels of economic and cultural development peoples, not only legal, but also actual equality of peoples has been achieved. Friendship of peoples, international unity have been established, inter-ethnic hostility and discord have become a thing of the past. The national question in the form in which we inherited it from the Russian Empire was successfully resolved. Achievements of national policy, a new stage in the development of national relations in the USSR were recorded in the Constitution of the USSR in 1977.

However, after that, attention to the problems and tasks in the field of national relations in the center and in the regions was weakened. It was clear that despite progress made, the national question is not removed from the agenda and requires constant close attention. New problems and circumstances arose in the sphere of national relations, characteristic of the stage of highly developed nations and mature national consciousness. These new points were not taken into account in practical national policy. Essentially, national relations were left to chance.

In such an environment, the shadow moments of interethnic relations began to appear more and more clearly. Errors and perversions in personnel policy became more frequent, serious omissions were made in economic and social policy, and other ill-considered actions undermining the stability of interethnic relations. Nationalist and separatist forces became more active in the republics (especially in the 1980s), tendencies to oppose the center, and anti-Russian and anti-Russian sentiments among local political elites intensified. These and other negative phenomena were not opposed by the Allied authorities. All this, one way or another, undermined the established friendship of peoples, undermined interethnic relations and, ultimately, led to the collapse of the USSR. At the same time, the collapse of the USSR does not at all mean that positive results were not achieved in national relations, that there was no friendship between peoples, or that the collapse occurred due to the unviability of the union multinational state. It is known that the USSR ceased to exist as a single state as a result of the subjective act of several high-ranking statesmen.

Control questions and tasks

1. What is the essence of the national question in the broad sense of this concept?
2. On what conditions and factors does the specific content of the national question depend?
3. Remember the history of the formation of Russia as a multinational state. Why did the majority of peoples voluntarily join the Russian state?
4. What was the national policy in the Russian Empire?
5. Was Russia a classic colonial empire? Was there any reason to call it the "prison of nations"?
6. What are the known ways and forms of solving the national question?
7. What was the state of interethnic relations in Russia in 1917?
8. What were the principles and methods of solving the national question proclaimed by the Soviet government?
9. How was the USSR formed? Why did he break up?
10. Friendship of peoples in the USSR - was it a reality or a myth?
11. What interethnic problems in the modern world do you know?

Literature

1. Abdulatipov R.G. National question and state structure. - M., 2001.
2. Public service Russian Federation and international relations. - M., 1995.
3. National policy of Russia: history and modernity. - M.,
4. National problems of Canada. - M., 1972.
5. The national question in the State Dumas of Russia. - M., 1999.
6. The national question abroad. - M., 1989.
7. Fundamentals of national and federal relations. - M., 2001.
8. Ways to solve the national question in modern Russia. - M.,
9. Russia in the XX century: problems of national relations. - M., 1999.
10. Tavadov G.T. Ethnology. Dictionary reference. - M., 1998.
11. Tishkov V.A. Essays on the theory and politics of ethnicity in Russia. - M., 1997.1897 Died Jindrich Wankel- Czech doctor, archaeologist and speleologist. The excavations carried out by him in the sites of prehistoric man in the area of the Moravian Karst gave important results on the history of the Czech Republic during the period of its settlement by man.

1923 Died George Carnarvon- Earl, English lord, Egyptologist and collector of antiquities. Together with Howard Carter, he explored the tombs of the pharaohs of the XII and XVIII dynasties, including the tomb of Tutankhamun. The unexpected death of Lord Carnarvon from pneumonia shortly after the opening of Tutankhamun's tomb served to launch the legend of the curse of the pharaohs into the media space.

2015 Died Pyotr Kachanovsky- Polish archaeologist, professor, doctor, specialist in Przeworsk archaeological culture.