Posted 21 августа 2023,, 08:15
Published 21 августа 2023,, 08:15
Modified 21 августа 2023,, 11:18
Updated 21 августа 2023,, 11:18
As you know, on August 21, 1991, a truly tectonic shift took place in the history of Russia: with the victory over the putschists of the GKCHP (State Committee on the State of Emergency), in fact, the agony of the entire Soviet Union began, which ended with its final collapse at the very end of 1991. However, paradoxically, the Russian media and social networks are extremely reluctant to write about this date. And this fact interested experts: why does the Russian authorities do not want to celebrate these three days — August 19, 20 and 21, because if those events had not happened, most likely they would not have occupied today's posts close to them?
For example, the economist Dmitry Prokofiev traces in his channel a rather frightening tradition in the behavior of the Russian authorities:
«No, of course, many of them (especially the children and grandchildren of Stalin's generals) would have made a career anyway, but who knows if they would have been able to soar to the very top?
In general, it would be logical to take August 19/21, 1991 as the starting point for the «new Russia», but no.
In general, the Russian Federation does not have a «firm date» at all, which the government would take as a starting point for its legitimacy and positioned it precisely in this capacity. The Soviet government had such an indisputable date — October 25 / November 7, 1917, the «October Revolution», an event with its own canon, according to this canon described in books and played out in films, an event whose content and meaning everyone in the USSR knew, the main public holiday, a point in time «where did the Soviet land come from».
There is nothing like this in the Russian Federation, moreover, if the government speaks about important dates of the «nineties», then in a low voice — this applies to August 91, October 93, and August 98.
This, by the way, is similar to the attitude of the Soviet government to the February Revolution of 1917 — about which they wrote in the history textbooks somehow casually and immediately moved on to «Lenin in October.» And that 's how the Soviet government did not like to talk about the events of the period between February and October 1917, and the Russian Federation-the government does not talk about the political dates of the nineties of the twentieth century.
There must be some very good reasons for such silence».
Publicist Pavel Pryanikov convincingly proves that it is this date — August 21, 1991, that the authorities should be grateful for their current existence to the grave:
«An important date these days is the liberal Revolution of 1991, during the opposition to the coup on August 19-21 of that year.
Now it is customary to vilify the «damned 90s» in every possible way.
But after all, all the higher authorities are beneficiaries of the 90s.
None of them then came out to protest against the collapse of the USSR. Although in general, no one came out. In general, this is an amazing coincidence of the interests of the authorities and the proles for our history — when their interests completely coincided, EVERYONE was so tired of the Soviet Union.
But why the authorities do not celebrate the victory over Sovietism.
I think it's a question of shame. It is difficult to expect shame from the authorities, so shamelessness is now being promoted in everything from foreign policy and law to personal life and hedonism. But still: this is a completely bottom biography of robber barons, looters who tormented the flesh and assets of the USSR. It's something at the level of the funeral team of punishers that gold crowns are torn out of corpses and fingers with rings are chopped off.
Probably, the children of the authorities, or rather even their grandchildren, will already celebrate the victory over the USSR. If by that time a new funeral team does not appear, it is already looting over the body of the Russian Federation.
Let's take a closer look at what the current beneficiaries of the regime would have achieved if they had not defeated the USSR on August 19-21, 1991. If the USSR had continued to live the way it lived before 1985.
What would the liberal and Chekist-power part of the winners get:
The highest level is the heads of the research Institute, professors, colonels — maximum major generals.
The salary is 300-500 rubles at the peak of his career. With the ratio of the current ruble to the ruble of 1985 200:1, these are salaries at the level of 60-100 thousand modern rubles.
They could steal something, but very carefully, so as not to fall under the article — rather, at the level of «gifts».
The maximum for pensions is personal, up to 200 rubles, i.e. this is the current 40 thousand rubles.
In the RSFSR, a country house is more than 100 sq. m. m was impossible to build.
A city apartment at most would be 3-4-room meters 70-90.
The maximum car is the Volga.
On holidays, this nomenclature would be given «sets» of smoked sausage sticks, cans of red caviar and sprats.
And compare with how these people live now — in palaces, with fortunes ranging from tens of millions to billions of dollars (under the USSR, they could have been shot for storing even $ 100). Even now, with its half of the world open to them. The best treatment in Israel or Hong Kong, the best vacation on tropical islands. Complete personal freedom, a huge distance from the proles, so as not to get in the way. Complete lack of control from the legal system.
In fact, these people pulled out a lucky ticket with the victory over the USSR on August 19-21, 1991. Rarely has anyone in history managed to do this already with the first generation of winners. By world standards, it's fantastic that fate would give this to yesterday's headmasters and majors—lieutenant colonels.»
Publicist Dmitry Travin decided to see how this date is interpreted in modern Russian history textbooks:
«I looked today for an understandable reason, what is said in Medinsky's textbook about the State Emergency Committee. God, how dry and dreary. But what a human tragedy it really was!
Here is Marshal Dmitry Yazov, the Minister of Defense, who faces a choice whether to crush Russian people with tanks from a different point of view who gathered to defend the White House, or to surrender without a fight to Boris Yeltsin, ending his service, career, and maybe life itself with shame. Yazov did not shoot at people. Probably because he was a real front-line soldier, and not a parquet general?
Here is the Minister of Internal Affairs Boris Karlovich Pugo — the son of a red Latvian shooter. On the one hand, «red», on the other — «Latvian». Two identities that are up to Perestroika almost never clashed with each other, and now they were forced to make a tragic choice between their party and their people. Pugo, caught by surprise by the coup, chose a party and shot himself three days later.
Here is Oleg Shenin, secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, one of the firm supporters of the coup. Not doubting and not hesitating. After the coup, he was, of course, imprisoned. What poems his loving daughter sent him to prison! I am not at all close to Shenin and his ideas are deeply alien to me. But I quoted the poem in its entirety in the book «Essays on the Modern History of Russia: 1985 — 1999».
Here are Vice President Gennady Yanaev and Prime Minister Valentin Pavlov! Terrified, unhappy. One of them had his hands shaking at a press conference. The other immediately went on a binge. Pavlov, after all, understood the need for stabilization measures in the sphere of finances ruined by Nikolai Ryzhkov and probably hoped that the State Emergency Committee would restore order. I wanted the best, but it turned out…
But Nikolai Ryzhkov himself is a strong business executive, the head of the government and the author of the economic reform of 1987, after which goods completely disappeared. In a month he will be 94 years old. The only survivor of the main characters of that turbulent era. He was nicknamed «the crying Bolshevik», but he is completely calm and does not feel responsible for what happened.
There is no Shakespeare to describe these people! But there is a Medina. He described how he could.»