Alexander Grishin Komsomolskaya Pravda. Alexander Grishin

“My brother serves in Minsk in the KGB to protect the Constitutional Court. I’ll send him your accounts now.”, he wrote on Twitter. This recording caused a new wave of laughter, anger and obscene statements addressed to him, writes Nasha Niva.

ALEXANDER, 9:03, 29.12

once in the KGB - that means 99.9% descendant of those who in the 30s executed without trial in Kurapaty (although there should be a similar burial near every regional center within a radius of no more than 20 km) of innocent people

*** , 9:05, 29.12

Can you tell me your brother's last name? Will be very useful later...

FREEDOM, 9:15, 29.12

Alexander Grishin, you are a fool, my friend! And you are a shitty journalist!

KOLYA ON KOLA, 9:10, 29.12

Until these Russians and other bastards begin to be beaten painfully, they will not learn anything.

MOMENT OF TRUTH. , 9:13, 29.12

No damn "family contract"! This is generally contrary to common sense. What does the constitutional system have to do with it if you, a scumbag, are called a scumbag? Imagine how a citizen of a foreign country instructs a KGB officer to deal with a person who has offended this foreigner.
It's not bad to set up your relative. If some cracker commands the Belarusian security forces, then I can imagine how the Kremlin and the FSB are in charge here!

GRANDMOTHER, 9:29, 12/29

So my brother was bragging about his capabilities to his relative. He just didn’t say one thing, nothing can scare us anymore, neither the KGB, nor the NKVD. Tell your brother that.

VISCOUNT, 9:29, 29.12

They used to hit people like that in the face with a candelabra

LEONID ISRAELIAN, 9:33, 29.12

And which of the NORMAL ones reads the current “Komsomol”? I bought it once (for old times’ sake) in Israel and threw it away on page 2

Me, 9:40, 12/29

Only a fool will always hide behind someone, a weak person... and even more so a man. You're not a man after that....but I have a brother and I have a matchmaker.....go and punch me in the face yourself if you don't....and if you do, then sit and shut up in a rag!

DA, 9:41, 29.12

FAIRKA, 10:19, 29.12

Good people, tell me the contacts of this comrade! Preferably VKontakte or Facebook. I want to personally express to him my opinion about him and his brother.
I found something to scare Belarusians with, the eccentric with the letter “m” is unfinished

BROTHER'S BROTHER, 10:53, 12/29

Now we celebrate June 12: cavalrymen prance, people walk, and in the evening there are colorful fireworks. This current celebration of the collapse of the former country was brought to us by Yeltsin, under whose power it could not have been otherwise. Photo: Vladimir VELENGURIN

On June 12, our country will celebrate Russia Day. Which until recently was called Independence Day. What date is this actually? And why is this holiday “with tears in our eyes” for many?

Russia (the dashing 90s), which we lost...

Two political opponents, Viktor Alksnis and Sergei Stankevich, argued in the editorial office of KP about the election of the first president of the RSFSR, Boris Yeltsin.

Exactly 25 years ago, Russia, then the RSFSR, elected its first president. Six pairs of candidates for the posts of president and vice president did not fight for long - Yeltsin and Rutskoi won in the first round, receiving 57.3% of the vote. The second winner of the vote was the leader of the LDPR (then LDPR) Vladimir Zhirinovsky, who took third place. The pair Nikolai Ryzhkov and Boris Gromov, who came to the finish line second, essentially recorded the complete loss of the communists as an organized political force in the country.

Sergei Stankevich and Viktor Alksnis, whose names at that time were not just well-known, but were heard almost every day, came to visit KP to remember those times and the lessons taught by this campaign. Now, by the way, they are both again gathered to fight for the mandates of State Duma deputies. Viktor Imantovich – from a single-mandate constituency, and Sergei Borisovich – from a party list.

WE WERE GOING TO A BALL, BUT IT TURNS OUT - TO A BROTHEL

Sergei Borisovich, you were part of Yeltsin’s election headquarters, how was it?

Stankevich:

I was even deputy chairman of the election headquarters for ideology. The headquarters was then headed by Gennady Burbulis. These were unique elections. Because they were made absolutely without money, on the sheer enthusiasm of tens of thousands of enthusiasts and volunteers. At that time there was no Internet yet, printed materials were needed. And the leaflets printed in the printing house were brought to airports, and the pilots took bundles with them into the cockpit, which were flying to the Far East, and there activists met them at the airport, and the pilots gave them these bundles. And that's how they transported it.

And it was done for free back then.

Stankevich:

And who could pay for what? On some needle printers in scientific institutes, small leaflets were distributed for posting and distribution from hand to hand by juniors research fellows, and then handed them out on the subway.

This is instead of doing science.

Stankevich:

I suspect that even in work time. This is what the election campaign was like. The vote was basically a colossal advance of the hope then associated with Boris Yeltsin.

In my opinion, our society before that, for almost 70 years, was in a situation where the country had a monopoly on truth, a monopoly on the power of one political force. And people were limited in their ability to express their opinions. This was the bitter reality of those days. And suddenly - perestroika, and suddenly it turned out that you can say whatever you want. You can put forward any of the most extravagant ideas, make proposals, gain access to the media, appear on the TV screen, make very unexpected statements. Idols appeared who literally became known throughout the country after just one appearance on TV. The country was obsessed with politics during that period. I would compare it to being a young, naive girl who was raised in a family with very strict rules...

The novice was sitting in the monastery. And her to the ball.

Not even to the ball. Let's say this naive girl from the monastery suddenly found herself on Tverskaya in the evening.

That is, they brought her to a brothel, but she thought she was going to a ball.

THE NOMENCLATURE LOOKED AT YELTSIN AS ONE OF THEIR EVEN IN DISFAGAL

How did Yeltsin seduce the country?

Stankevich:

Firstly, he was not, to put it mildly, a novice in politics. He went through all the levels of the hierarchy in the Communist Party. He was not the last to head the regional committee - Sverdlovsky. The party itself transferred him to Moscow. He became the first secretary of the Moscow City Party Committee. He immediately terrified the bureaucrats and nomenklatura by starting to persecute them for their privileges. He traveled on public transport, he entered stores unexpectedly. And I personally bought the products and tried to try them. This made a stunning impression at the time. Now we can be ironic: ha-ha, populism and so on. But then people really reacted. I can personally say that when Yeltsin became the first secretary of the city party committee in 1986, I went and wrote a statement to the Communist Party. And in 1987 he joined. Just under the influence of this powerful personality. And he also acted very radically. He demanded change, movement forward. So, it was no coincidence that the people focused on Yeltsin, it was no coincidence that they supported him.

And, most interestingly, if Yeltsin, overthrown from the political Olympus, had not fallen into our hands, the entire political party that was brewing within itself: Moscow clubs, St. Petersburg clubs, where the intelligentsia gathered and discussed perestroika, it would have remained a club activity. And she wouldn’t go out to the people herself.

What, even Chubais would have stayed in St. Petersburg?

Stankevich:

We would have stayed in St. Petersburg and Moscow. Since he was kicked out from everywhere, he fell into our arms. His people came to us in the south-west of Moscow and said: Boris Nikolaevich is in a difficult situation, he is very worried, abandoned by everyone, no one calls him, and so on. And we started helping him. At the same time, the huge party-bureaucratic system reacted to him differently than to a bunch of intellectuals discussing something in their kitchens. Thousands of bureaucrats - party and state - looked at him as one of their own. Yes, he is disgraced, but he is ours, he gives signals: I belong. Who knows, what if tomorrow he really will be returned to the very top? And just in case: let’s be loyal to him. And a year after his overthrow, he successfully participated in election campaign to people's deputies.

The overthrow was when he was transferred to the first deputy chairman of the State Construction Committee.

His expulsion from the Soviet political Olympus led to the fact that he based everything further not on the desire to improve life in the country, but on revenge. Achieve political revenge. And his entire subsequent life, at least in the initial period, was devoted to one thing - to achieve revenge, to take revenge on Gorbachev. The famous scene when, after the State Emergency Committee in the meeting room of the Supreme Soviet of Russia, Yeltsin poked his nose at Gorbachev on the podium: and you sign this decree, you do it! And I understand that at that moment he realized that he had achieved everything. He was not humiliated publicly - well, he was removed and removed, but here he publicly took revenge for everything. But this revenge led to the fact that we eventually lost the country.

Stankevich:

The moment of personal confrontation is very significant. But to sum it all up, the significance is colossal historical events only that it is impossible for Boris Nikolaevich to quarrel with Mikhail Sergeevich.

Yes, they loved him as if he had been offended and unfairly punished. But here a more significant combination was heard - “the fight against privilege.” Sergei Borisovich, weren’t the people who surrounded him ashamed when Yeltsin got out of the limousine and drove one or two stops to the Mossovet?

Stankevich:

The demand for change was so colossal that even moments like these still made an impression. But he also called for serious changes in the country. To ensure that the idea of ​​self-financing exists. Remember this word? Enterprises must switch to self-financing. Rental idea. Renting needs to be developed. He then... they opened weekend fairs in Moscow, that’s what happened to him. And he began to invite: come and trade in Moscow. Yeltsin cannot be reduced to just superficial populism.

When I was elected to the People's Deputies of the USSR in March 1989, I came immediately, even before the first congress, to Moscow specifically to see Yeltsin. Because I only read what was officially going on, I had no contacts. There are some conversations, but it’s realistic that this is an outcast who seems to have been punished for something. Was Gorbachev right to punish him? I flew for the first time as an elected deputy, even before the opening of the congress, to Moscow. I came to Gosstroy on Pushkinskaya, showed my temporary deputy ID: I want to get in. Please. He went up to the reception area. I’m sitting there: yes, he will see you now. And suddenly the delegation of the Popular Front of Latvia, my enemies who were preparing Latvia’s exit from the Union, comes out of Yeltsin’s office, and Yeltsin is very kind to them: yes, you and I will fight together for the victory of democracy and so on. I stand there stunned. It was a blow for me. It was April 1989 when I first saw it. I immediately went into his office, already in a daze. I flew to him to make sure that this man can be supported. And then I had a complete breakdown. I talked to him, stunned.

What did he tell you?

I told him that Latvia would leave the Union. He said: I think you are exaggerating, this will never happen. Because right there smart people. I just had a delegation, they all understand perfectly well that they cannot do it without Russia. There are some extremists there, but in fact these are our allies, people who want order, democracy and so on in the country. I listened to him and said: yes, these are nationalists, separatists, and of an aggressive kind, who are coming to power. And he told me: no, you’re being dramatic. In fact, I believe that we should unite together. Even Latvian nationalists, we must together overcome the totalitarian regime... Should we destroy the state for the sake of destroying the regime? I thought it was wrong. And I left him extremely disappointed. And I realized that he cannot be supported under any circumstances. On the other hand, I saw what Gorbachev was like, who by this time was causing everyone severe disappointment.

The symbols of the previous era were thrown into the dustbin of history in the 90s, like “happy childhood”, and “confidence in the future”, and other attributes of the USSR. Photo: Vladimir VOROBYEV

THERE WAS A DISRUPTION. WILL THERE BE A CONVENTION?

Yeltsin won. You already knew that the collapse of the Union was coming?

Stankevich:

Nothing like this. First of all, let me remind you. 1989, first there were elections to people's deputies of the USSR, where we ended up together. We have created an interregional deputy group. It was in the first and last Soviet parliament that there was the first and last opposition team, which included a bunch of academicians, including Academician Sakharov. We made our own opposition program. There was the preservation of the Soviet Union. Yeltsin did not agree easily. We tried to persuade him not to leave the Novo-Ogarevo trial. Everything was boiling inside him.

Did he leave?

Stankevich:

He tried. But the team persuaded him.

Poltoranin told our newspaper 5 years ago. In July 1991, after the elections, they invited him to the river to go fishing, where Yeltsin, Burbulis and the others were. Poltoranin arrived and began to say, let’s think about how we will improve relations with Gorbachev and the Union Center after this. And they answered him: stop. Now a little time will pass, and there will be no need to negotiate anything with anyone.

Stankevich:

Memoirs are a rather complicated thing. Some remember one thing, others another. I haven't been fishing. I generally avoided things that involved drinking alcohol afterwards. Because I thought it was wrong. But in any case, some remember one thing, others another. And I simply wouldn’t take any memoirist’s word for it. The new draft union treaty, which was supposed to be signed on August 20, was initialed by all the leaders of 9 republics, and they were already on their way to signing. Kravchuk, the great and independent one, was already sitting in the car and moving along the road to Boryspil when he received a call that he didn’t have to go, there was a putsch in Moscow. And he already wanted to fly there to sign the contract. So these are the facts and documents. And who said what to whom while fishing, let us leave this to the conscience of the memoirists.

Yes, in those days, many leaders of those republics who had previously said that we had nothing to do with the referendum, they were almost the first to report to the State Emergency Committee that they ardently support and restore order.

There was the famous Georgian President Gamsakhurdia, with whom Moscow could not do anything. He began to be the first in the former Soviet Union to create national military formations - the national guard. The commander of the troops of the Transcaucasian Military District, General Patrikeev, said that on the morning of August 19, the President of independent Georgia, Gamsakhurdia, called him at his headquarters in Tbilisi for the first time in two years and said: “Comrade commander, I signed a decree on the dissolution of the National Guard, on the recognition of the State Emergency Committee, I am ready comply with all orders and directives of the State Emergency Committee.” And then, when it started in Moscow, of course, it all collapsed. In Riga, the commander of the Baltic Military District, Kuzmin, received a call back from the entire Latvian leadership one by one. Everyone confirmed that they all had party cards in their safes, that the devil had misled them, that they had contacted these damned separatist nationalists. But now we are ready to restore order in the country.

Stankevich:

This fear ran deep. Everyone tried to insure themselves. Who knew how it would end.

Crash great Russia It will be a long and expensive life for us. Although, I think it’s not evening yet. You know, in Riga we had the 289th district military hospital. Built back in the times of Peter the Great. These are typical two-story brick buildings. There was a board hanging, there was the following text: “The 289th district military hospital was formed by decree of Peter I on such and such a date in 1703. In August 1915, due to the approach of the German front to Riga, the hospital was evacuated to Vologda. In June 1940, in connection with the restoration Soviet power in Latvia, a military hospital returned from evacuation to permanent place based in Riga. In June 1941, in connection with the beginning of the Great Patriotic War the hospital was evacuated to Vologda. In October 1944 they returned to Riga.” There is the history of the country.

Has he been evacuated now?

In 1991 to Russia.

Is there still room on the sign?

If you need it, we'll find it.

THE CPSU WAS NOT ENOUGH ZHIRINOVSKY IN ITS RANKS

Stankevich:

Let's return to the agreement that we did not sign on August 20, 1991. Listen to what kind of Union we could live in now. Common foreign policy, common army, common currency with a single emission center. General President. And in the future there will be a common union constitution. In the meantime, this all exists on the basis of an agreement. I am sure that this would have been a completely normal, viable state, it is a pity that it did not happen. The CIS was a way of civilized divorce. So as not to run away at all. Unfortunately, this opportunity was missed.

The CIS is, as secular and semi-secular ladies now like to say, it is such friendly sex with an ex. When they separated, and then it was unclear who won whom. Viktor Imantovich, the Communist Party understood that Yeltsin was super popular. Why did they field several candidates and not go against him with a single fist?

No matter how bitter it is for me, a Soviet patriot, to admit, our Soviet elite had degenerated by this time. She had already lost her sense of self-preservation. They were carried along by a stormy stream. It would seem that this boat had to be rowed somewhere, but they either threw the oars or simply watched the waterfall approaching into which they would fall. I watched the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR. Four-fifths of the congress were communists. I was a disciplined member of the CPSU. Yes, the concept of proletarian internationalism and class struggle raised many questions in me. I doubted these things, but I expected that I, as a member of the CPSU, would be called, Gorbachev would gather the communists and say: this way and that, vote this way. When I was convinced that there was nothing, then I was forced to create the Soyuz group. There is only one slogan - “Saving the country, preserving a unified state.” This was the most popular slogan among deputies. Because the majority understood perfectly well that nothing good would come from the collapse of the country. And we united in this group. But we didn’t get any help. We criticized Gorbachev and Yeltsin.

I think that most of the second secretaries also looked at these figures and chose the lesser of two evils. And in the end, the political elite of the RSFSR decided to bet on Yeltsin. Yes, they realized that Yeltsin would not fight for the Union. But, on the other hand, everyone was thinking that - where would they go from this submarine? All the same, everyone will crawl to Moscow on their knees, asking to be given oil, gas, and so on. And everything will slowly recover. And now we can let everyone go for now. But support Yeltsin.

It is clear that Zhirinovsky was not in the then CPSU, he would have shown you how to build party discipline.

Stankevich:

Do you know what the critical point became? Not even 1991. And 1990. Indeed, a lot came from the economy. This spectacle of empty stores, this daily humiliation of people who could not buy anything and who were jostling with these coupons, led to tobacco riots. This needed to be resolved urgently. Now many people are making fun of Yavlinsky’s “500 days” program. But we moved on. The only case was when Gorbachev and Yeltsin agreed and created a joint team led by academician Shatalin. And this team, which included all Soviet academic economists, based on these proposals by Yavlinsky, made a very powerful program for a real gradual, delicate transition to the market: the Shatalin-Yavlinsky program. Moreover, there was significantly more from Shatalin than from Yavlinsky. And this program was submitted in September 1990, agreed upon by Yeltsin and Gorbachev, to the Supreme Council. The noise starts. Comrade Ryzhkov, who then headed the government, says: if this program is accepted, I will resign, which is logical. Gorbachev says: no, calm down, we are removing it from the vote. Take it and improve it. And from that moment we rolled towards 1991.

One of the main reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union was the formation of two centers of power in Moscow. Dual power has arrived. There was a union center and a center of the RSFSR. Under these conditions, the country was already doomed. The tugging of the blanket began. The deputies of the RSFSR, who were considered supporters of democracy and progressive people, in contrast to the “reactionaries” in the Union Parliament, experienced an inferiority complex. Because to some extent, they internally felt like second-class deputies, that there were higher-ranking deputies above them. They wanted to get rid of these union deputies. The same thing happened with the branches of the executive branch. They divided the crown and crucified the country.

SUBJUNCTIVE MOOD

“Either good things are said about the dead, or nothing but the truth.” Chilo (6th century BC) - ancient Greek political figure and poet, one of the "seven wise men".

If Yeltsin hadn’t drunk himself...

Stankevich:

You can not say that!

It would be good if he had not fallen victim to some of his bad habits, where would we be now?

Stankevich:

This problem arose later. And it was associated with colossal overloads that fell on him. And it arose already at the height of the reforms that were carried out in Russia. I pronounce the word “reforms” with a complex connotation, because there were colossal mistakes made there. That's when the problem started. And I continue to maintain the position that he should not have run for a second term. It was then necessary to take care of a successor. Because all the worst mistakes happened during his second term. It was then that there were mortgage auctions, then the rampant oligarchy began, it was then that the star of Boris Berezovsky rose. Yeltsin could well step aside and become such a guru of reforms and Deng Xiaoping. And find a worthy successor. I think that the costs of the difficult period of the 90s were multiplied by this mistake.

Nothing would have changed even if Yeltsin had left at the very beginning. Because one vertical of power was destroyed - the communist one. It was no longer possible to restore it. And in this situation there was no power at all. In fact, over the past hundred years we have had two cases. In February 1917, Russian liberals came to power, close to them, with liberal ideas. In six months they chopped the country into pieces. As a result, the country collapsed. In 1991, the liberals again took over - and again the country was destroyed. Therefore, the root cause is that, unlike, for example, American liberals, who put their state first, our liberals hate their state. In the first half of the 19th century, the little-known Russian poet Pecherin wrote: “How sweet it is to hate the Fatherland and eagerly await its destruction!” And in the second half of the 20th century, one of the main characters of Solzhenitsyn’s “In the First Circle” continued: they say, I live in such a terrible country that if an atomic bomb were dropped on it and everyone was destroyed, this would be the best way out.

Stankevich:

The Soviet Union, now we can talk about this from the standpoint of today’s knowledge, of course, was a project state. Created for a specific project - communist. It was necessary to build communism in one single country and subsequently spread communism, to create an international system of socialism. And then distribute this project all over the world. This entire colossal bureaucratic machine and vertical was built under this project. When the project reached a dead end, alas, the project state began to collapse.

Who told you that he had reached a dead end?

Stankevich:

I saw it, I felt it. I was a good analyst even then. And now, looking back, from the standpoint of international experience, I am absolutely sure that there was a complete dead end.

Where did the USSR project come to a dead end?

Stankevich:

He reached a dead end because it was a project state tailored to communism.

There is no need for general theoretical stereotypes. Where exactly did he get stuck?

Stankevich:

Which ones are theoretical? What was supposed to hold all these republics together? For example, Tajikistan and Estonia?

Industrial cooperation, for example. Now Ukrainians boast about “our Mriya”. What kind of “theirs” is it, if from the Tashkent aircraft plant to St. Petersburg, from Khabarovsk to Belarus, this Mriya aircraft was assembled by more than a hundred enterprises?

Even Karl Marx, who was a famous Russophobe, even he said that Russia played a huge civilizing role in Central Asia. We brought civilization there. We industrialized the Baltic states and other union republics. And all this was done through joint efforts. This fairy tale that the Soviet Union wanted to build communism throughout the world, sorry, it ended in 1937.

Stankevich:

Are you saying you didn't want to? That is, all congresses, including the last one, lied on this topic?

I think that by Brezhnev the task of building communism throughout the world was no longer a priority. Under Brezhnev, the task was to build developed socialism in the USSR.

Stankevich:

Why was developed socialism needed? As a step to subsequent communism. It was still an international communist labor movement, endlessly supported by money collected from our citizens. Cash was sent through special channels. I was told how money was thrown at the communist parties. It was a complete dead end.

Do you want to say that we have now emerged from that dead end onto a broad civilizational road?

Stankevich:

We broke the deadlock in 1991.

We have reset social guarantees, we have reset social elevators.

Stankevich:

Are we talking about the Union or are we talking about social guarantees?

And social guarantees were not in themselves, but in the Union.

There were huge social elevators.

Stankevich:

After all, getting a higher education is not a problem now. There is a problem with quality. And with access to higher education... At every step there is a university.

Last question. How do you feel about the Yeltsin Center, which was built up for budget billions?

Alksnis:

- I am categorically against it. Because it was an era of shame. The era of death, defeat of great Russia. And Yeltsin had a direct connection to this. I believe that it is wrong for such a person to erect such cyclopean monuments. It would be better to do without this. Because, in fact, they erected a monument to the man who destroyed historical Russia in 1991.

Stankevich:

- My point of view. I don’t know how much was spent there, but we can certainly demand an accounting. I think that rumors of untold billions are greatly exaggerated. Let them show you what the budgets are. What was the budget funding? But until we figure this out, I suggest not speculating on the price.

- Let’s agree that if one of you becomes a State Duma deputy, your first deputy request will be on this topic. And if both, then serve it together.

Both: I agree!

One of the intellectual leaders of the non-systemic opposition, the second person in the Coordination Council, judging by the voting results, the writer and poet Dmitry Bykov recently opened up about the fate of Russia in Kazan, where he came to talk about his books and give a lecture “USSR 20 years later: what now will".

In his opinion, it’s time for all of us “to get used to living with an independent Caucasus, an independent Siberia, an independent Far East.” They say that the chance to remain a single territory has been lost in best case scenario we need to adopt the format government system, like in the USA.

Tatarstan today is in many respects an alien and lost territory. I'm not saying that this will lead to territorial disintegration. The United States of America, for example, sits very closely together. But the United States, in which everyone has their own legislation and rights, is where we will apparently end up. Tatarstan is an enclave within Russia. The enclave is Tatar and Islamic in many respects. It will not be possible to make him 100% Russian and there is no need to,” he said.

NON-PARTY NOTES
You didn’t build the country, it’s not for you to dismantle it

There is probably something magical in Tatarstan that opposition figures there are so openly, as they say now, “coming out of the woods.” I remember that at first Udaltsov held some negotiations with radical nationalists in Kazan. Now the light of the non-systemic intelligentsia has opened up.

There was no doubt before that the States are the light in the window of our liberal democrats. The center of civilization, where all good things came from, the country of freedom, the torch of democracy, and so on. Those who wish can continue this series. I, for example, am not one of them. But this is the first time I’ve encountered such undisguised distortion. What, someone wants to turn a national republic into a 100% Russian region? I haven’t noticed anything like this anywhere except at Bykov’s. It is clear that for a writer his fantasies are the same reality as for others, for example, a completely material iron or frying pan. Only here in in this case Mr. Bykov no longer speaks on the pages of his artistic works.

And in this case, it is not so important whether he really wants such a development of events and the transformation of the country into a bunch of quasi-states, which his beloved USA will be so easy to deal with one by one, crushing some, bribing some, and leaving others out of his sight, or simply, as a cheap opportunist, he is trying to play on the soul strings of local nationalists and Islamic radicals, trying to breathe regional strength into the deflated white-ribbon protest.

It seems that the principle of “nothing personal - just business” has become one of the working tools for those who consider themselves revolutionaries, regardless of whether or not they understand that sooner or later they will have to pay the bills. Or they really don’t care about anything except their thirst, which they can only quench once they come to power.

I can tell you one thing, gentlemen - you didn’t build the country, and it’s not for you to dismantle it. And, by the way, regarding the independence of Russian regions, you are not the first. I remember that some US statesmen only dreamed about this until recently. But nothing worked out for them, and even less so for you.

Zbigniew Brzezinski turns 85 years old. KP correspondents Alexander Grishin and Daria Aslamova remembered all the victories and defeats of one of the most prominent “enemies of Moscow”

Change text size: A A

ANTI-COMMUNIST? YES, BUT MORE - RUSOPHOB

His Russophobia has long-standing family roots. Dad - Tadeusz Brzezinski - was a diplomat from that lordly Poland and a staunch ally of Hitler against the USSR. According to some information, it was Zbigniew’s dad, who worked in Moscow in 1938, who contributed a lot to Warsaw’s refusal to give passage Soviet troops to help Prague after the Munich Agreement to surrender Czechoslovakia to Hitler.

By the way, Poland then also bit off a considerable piece of the torn country. Surprisingly, Zbigniew’s wife Emilia, the daughter of Czechoslovakian President Edward Benes, overthrown by the Nazis, shared her husband’s Russophobic views.

“Iron Zbigniew,” as Brzezinski was nicknamed, played a prominent role in American foreign policy in the second half of the 20th and early 21st centuries. Suffice it to say that he, as a professor, shaped the views of his students Madeleine Albright and Condoleezza Rice, who later became US Secretaries of State. He was studying and Latin America, and the Middle East, but most of all the main enemy of the USA - the USSR.

TRIUMPHER

It was Brzezinski who became the author of the American doctrine regarding the USSR, which can be characterized by the short phrase “drive like a horse.” He reached his peak of activity under US President Jimmy Carter, who made him his national security adviser. In 1998, Brzezinski admitted: “Carter signed the first directive on secret assistance to opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul on July 3, 1979.” And when asked by a journalist (by that time the Taliban already ruled Afghanistan, but Al-Qaeda had not yet attacked the Twin Towers) whether it was dangerous to supply bin Laden with weapons, Brzezinski brushed aside: “This secret operation was great idea. Her goal was to lure the Russians into an Afghan trap, and you want me to regret it?.. What is more important in the history of the world - the Taliban or the fall of the Soviet empire?

The collapse of the USSR was his moment of triumph. He predicted the future of our country back in 1988 as follows: “Long-term, but never leading to definite results, unrest... further concessions and thoughtless changes... Reforms in the economy will likely deprive Soviet workers of the main benefits, namely guarantees employment and stable wages... Strengthening national and religious conflicts or separatist aspirations among the peoples of the USSR.” Agree, everything is outlined very accurately.

AND WITH RUSSIA - A bummer

For the legal successor of the USSR, Brzezinski saw a very specific future - a vassal of the United States, happy in the fact that a higher power allowed it to exist in the world. And even better, according to Brzezinski’s strategy, such a future awaits several small states at once, into which Russia must be divided.

To those who disagreed, the American political strategist threatened unambiguously: “We destroyed the USSR, we will destroy Russia too... Russia in general is extra country... This is a defeated power. She lost a titanic struggle. And to say “it was not Russia, but the Soviet Union” means running away from reality. It was Russia, called Soviet Union. She challenged the US. She was defeated. Now there is no need to feed illusions about Russia’s great power. We need to discourage this way of thinking... Russia will be fragmented and under tutelage.” But the real motto for foreign policy The United States received the following dictum from Brzezinski: “A new world order under US hegemony is being created against Russia, at the expense of Russia and on the ruins of Russia.”

And initially everything went according to these recipes. At least as long as Yeltsin was at the helm. There was “take as much sovereignty as you want” and shock therapy... And then, starting in the summer of 2000, the “Brzezinski system” began to fail.

If Russia pursues Eurasian goals, it will remain imperial, and imperial traditions must be isolated, Brzezinski warned. He warned, but could not prevent it.

Putin's Russia began to rapidly acquire allies. Shanghai organization cooperation, the Customs Union, the Eurasian Union... This is like a bone in Brzezinski’s throat.

Another bone was the collapse of his plans to split Ukraine with Russia. It was planned to bring the “orange” to power in Kyiv (temporarily succeeded), establish NATO control there (failure), blockade the Russian Black Sea Fleet (failure), and introduce a visa regime between Ukraine and Russia (failure).

He dedicated his life to destruction Russian giant. But the giant is still alive. And this is the main nightmare for Zbigniew.

CALL TO THE ANNIVERSARY

Brzezinski - Komsomolskaya Pravda: “I love Russia, but...”

The former eminence grise in the administration of President Jimmy Carter today consults, researches, and lectures. And, by the way, he leads a very active social life, being, for example, an indispensable participant in the annual ball held in New York by the Kosciuszko Foundation, which unites immigrants from Poland living in America.

Many are sure that his views towards Russia, unchanged since the time cold war, still exert considerable influence on the minds of the US presidential administration. Whether Zbig advises Barack Obama directly is unknown. And publicly he expresses his thoughts in such a way that their true meaning becomes clear only after some time.

What does he think about our country now? I called the hero of the day: “Happy birthday, Mr. Brzezinski! Say a few words for KP: what feelings do you have towards Russia?” He thanked for the congratulations, but, citing being busy, said that he would answer by e-mail. And soon a short message arrived: “I love Russia so much that I want Russia to be Russia.” So, understand it as you wish...

NY. Alexey OSIPOV

FROM PERSONAL NOTEBOOK

Devil mediocre

KP special correspondent Daria ASLAMOVA recalls interviewing Zbigniew Brzezinski in 2008.

He struck me as the devil. A cunning mediocre devil. Incredible energy in a frail, frail body, caustic irony hidden in the corners of narrow old eyes and an inexplicable sense of danger. Is it possible to be afraid of a weak old man? It is possible if his mind has destructive power, next to which an atomic bomb is just a child's toy.

I once felt a young hatred for this man, who did everything to destroy my Motherland, the USSR. Brzezinski is the author of an entire ideology of “the fight against totalitarianism.” It was brilliant idea- turn the battle between “capitalism and communism” into a struggle between “democracy and totalitarianism”, thereby depriving the enemy of moral superiority. Before financial capital there was nothing to oppose the idea of ​​“universal brotherhood and solidarity.”

With experience, the hatred went away. I even extended my hand to Brzezinski and said: “It’s a pleasure to shake hands with the most famous of our enemies. Especially if the enemy is smart." He looked at me with an arrogant look: “That’s true. However, it is a bad idea to increase the number of enemies, which, for example, your Putin likes to do.”

I came to Brzezinski with a clear desire to find out what we SHOULD NOT DO. How? Very simple. Ask him for advice on where Russia should go. And do exactly the opposite. Brzezinski immediately started talking about the federalization of Russia: “Russia will not be able to develop due to exclusive centralization. If you had a commonwealth of republics with centers on Far East, in Siberia and Moscow, all regions would be in much more advantageous positions. If the United States were a centralized country like Russia, we would never have California and New York." “But the USA and Russia are countries with completely different historical reality, - I objected. - In the USA, people of different nationalities and even races live in each state. Russia, on the contrary, consists of national republics, each of which can lay claim to an independent role. Federalization is the first step towards the collapse of Russia.” “Unfortunately, you have a tendency to view any criticism as hostile,” my interlocutor noted.

Brzezinski felt irritated by the very fact that Russia as a single country still existed, that his life’s work was not finished. Yes, the USSR is dead, but Russia is alive. This means that we need to finish it off with federalization, breaking it up into many small republics that squabble and quarrel to the point of bloodshed. Then you can die in peace. But he's still alive. However, Brzezinski is unlikely to ever die. He is immortal. How immortal is the idea of ​​war. After all, wars, cold or hot, never end.