national question and national relations

National relations are always associated with the solution of certain ethnic problems concerning the conditions for the survival and development of certain ethnic groups, including the problems of territory, language, traditions, and spiritual life in general.

The objective basis for the emergence and development of national-ethnic relations is the coexistence of individual ethnic groups in a single territory (neighboring territories). As a rule, these relations do not exist in their pure form, they are woven into the existing economic, social, political relations, but their subjects are ethno-social communities.

Economic interethnic relations are aimed at satisfying the economic needs of ethnic groups in work, a certain level of consumption, and property. Social relations between ethnic groups are realized in everyday life, family structure (inclination to interethnic marriages, or, conversely, to their avoidance), in the structure of production teams, etc. Political interethnic relations in a multinational state concern, first of all, the participation of ethnic groups in the exercise of political power, in the national-state structure, in the practice of exercising civil rights. Interethnic relations in the region culture characterize the interaction of ethnic groups in spiritual life and are aimed, on the one hand, at preserving national identity, on the other, at mutual enrichment and internationalization.

The interaction of national communities is characterized by the following social processes: migration, integration, consolidation, assimilation, accommodation (adaptation), acculturation.

Under migration refers to the movement of ethnosocial groups within an ethnic territory or resettlement to the territory of other titular ethnic groups. (The titular ethnos gives the name of the territory of the state, to the national-state formation).

Quite often, in Western sociology, ethnography, the term "migration" refers to culture, in which case migration processes are considered as an invasion of a population or cultures into an alien ethnic or cultural area.

Integration characterizes the process of establishing ethnic cultural contacts of heterogeneous ethnic groups within the same socio-economic and political community (for example, the formation in Russia of the same traditions and rituals among different ethnic groups). During the existence of the USSR and the socialist camp, integration was also understood as economic ties developing according to a single plan.

Consolidation - this is the process of merging relatively independent ethnic groups and ethnic groups, usually related in language and culture, into a single ethno-social community. For example, Altai-Kizhi, Telengits, Teleuts, Chelkans, Kumandins in the twentieth century formed into the Altai people.

Assimilation - the process of ethnic interaction of already formed ethno-social communities that differ significantly in origin, culture, language, as a result of which representatives of one ethnic group learn the language and culture of another ethnic group. As a rule, at the same time they lose their former nationality (ethnicity), dissolve in the socio-cultural environment of another ethnic group. Assimilation is natural, voluntary and forced. The latter is accompanied by the oppression of one people by another, socio-economic inequality, violation of civil rights.

Accommodation, or adaptation is the adaptation of people to life in a new ethnic environment or the adaptation of this environment to them for mutual existence and interaction in the economic and social spheres. These terms were borrowed by positivist sociologists from the biological sciences.

acculturation - it is a process of interpenetration of cultures, as a result of which their initial models change. Often in Western ethnosociology, acculturation appears as a synonym for Europeanization, Americanization, i.e. means the process of distribution among the peoples of Asia, Africa, of Eastern Europe, Russian foreign elements of culture, forms of management, social institutions.

The ideology and practice of regulating national relations in the USSR, despite their official internationalist shell, formed the ethnic self-consciousness of citizens both through the official registration of ethnic origin by one of the parents, and through the nationalization of ethnicity in the system of national-state structure.

The Russian Empire, unlike Western states, forcibly displacing and destroying indigenous ethnic groups (natives) in the conquered territory, created conditions for the preservation of ethnic groups and provided them with military-political protection. Most peoples became part of Russia voluntarily. However, the level of socio-economic and cultural development of most ethnic groups differed significantly, which led to periodic exacerbations of the national question.

Under national question most often they understand the question of the oppression of one nation by another, their inequality and socio-economic inequality, the liberation and self-determination of an ethnic group.

AT teaching aids and dictionaries, one can also find another definition, where the emphasis is on the system of interrelated problems of the development of peoples. In our opinion, the first definition is more correct, since the national question itself is remembered when society encounters certain contradictions, dysfunctions, and injustices.

The problems of national equality and justice are extremely complex and not always amenable to successful resolution even in developed democratic countries. For decades, the Kurdish national question has been preserved in Turkey, the French one in Canada (Quebec), the Irish one in Great Britain (Ulster). Ethnic tension is noted by sociologists in the relationship between Spaniards and Basques, Walloons and Flemings in Belgium, and so on.

Long before October 1917, the Bolsheviks proposed the principle of complete equality of nations for solving the national question. After the Bolsheviks came to power, Stalin replaced the principle of self-determination with the concept of separation, secession from the state (secession).

Self-determined, in the sense of secession, even under the Provisional Government, the Polish, Finnish, Lithuanian, Latvian and Estonian nations. Self-determination of the Soviet republics through secession, in conditions of military and economic ruin, was tantamount to suicide. By the time of the revolution, Russia, basically, remained traditional society with deep communal traditions, a patriarchal Asian mode of production that gravitated towards administrative methods of managing the economy. These reasons significantly influenced the form of self-determination. Stalin - People's Commissar for Nationalities Affairs, then the head of state - actually laid down the tradition of treating self-determination exclusively as a separation, which, in turn, turned out to be illusory, since the right of the working class to strengthen its dictatorship was considered higher than the right to self-determination.

As a result, one type of domination - on behalf of the Great Russian nation was replaced by another - on behalf of the Great Russian proletariat. The Russian nation has retained in the administrative and political aspect dominant position in USSR. At the same time, in the socio-economic sense, the Russian ethnos lived for decades no better than its politically dependent brothers in socialism.

In words, the inadmissibility of forced assimilation was proclaimed. If assimilation is carried out without coercion, then there is nothing reprehensible in it. Immigrants are actively assimilated in the countries of Western Europe and America. In practice, a line was pursued for the forced assimilation of small nationalities, the liquidation of organizations involved in national affairs. In the mid-1930s, 250 national districts were liquidated, including the German national district in Altai, and 5,300 national rural Soviets. In Stalin's report on the draft constitution, it was stated that there were 60 ethno-social communities in the country, although even during the 1926 census, 194 ethnic groups were taken into account. In the 1940s, the autonomies of the Volga Germans, Kalmyks, Crimean Tatars, Balkars, Ingush, Chechens-Akins and other peoples were liquidated, and they themselves were deported - forcibly evicted from ethnic territories with deprivation of civil rights.

Elements of "Russification" were clearly traced in the language policy. Today, out of 120 languages ​​spoken in Russia, only four (Russian, Tatar, Bashkir and Yakut) have access to a complete secondary education.

Since the ethnic structure of society was built on the principle of a branching tree (autonomous okrugs were included in regions, autonomous regions - in territories, etc.), small ethnic groups were subordinate to larger ones. Therefore, for example, in Tajikistan they ignored the problems of the peoples of the Pamirs, and in Azerbaijan - of Nagorno-Karabakh. Some ethnic groups have become objects of real ethnocide, that is, destruction on the basis of belonging to ethnic communities or the creation of conditions for their narrowed reproduction. This concerns, first of all, the peoples of the North and Siberia, who survived for 5-6 millennia and were undermined in 30-40 years. Their numbers are declining, and the average life expectancy is much lower than the national average.

These sad facts and trends should not obscure the outstanding achievements of the USSR in the economic and cultural fields of most nations. Many of them acquired their own written language and reached a level of education comparable to that of the developed countries of the world, created national cinematography and literature. From 1922 to 1985 the volume of industrial output in Kazakhstan increased 950 times, in Tajikistan - 905 times, in Kyrgyzstan - 720 times. The national outskirts developed at a much higher rate than Russia. The terrible trials of the Great Patriotic War and a nationwide victory over fascism.

We paid much attention to the mistakes and miscalculations made earlier in national policy, because it was they who created the prerequisites for a sharp aggravation of national relations in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The policy of glasnost stirred up all old grievances, and the crisis phenomena in the economy of most regions paved the way, first for the spread of nationalism, and then for socio-political movements for secession from the USSR.

Ethnonationalism -it is the proclamation of the priority of ethnic values ​​over personal and group values, propaganda of the exclusivity and superiority of one nation over others.

The rise of national self-consciousness was accompanied by an increase in tension and conflict in interethnic relations, the emergence of strong centrifugal tendencies. The adventurism of politicians completed the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Sociologists, ethnologists, and lawyers faced new serious questions that required special research. The problem of forms of implementation of the sovereignty of national-state formations - the subjects of the Russian Federation - has become particularly acute. The migration activity of Russian and Russian-speaking national groups in the former republics of the USSR has sharply increased. Social well-being deteriorated. If during the period of stagnation the assimilation of other nationalities by Russians was real, today we can talk about the other extreme - the forced assimilation of Russians, and in some republics - Chechnya, Latvia, Estonia - flagrant violations of civil rights, ethnic cleansing.

In the geopolitical space of the former USSR, the number of ethnic conflicts has sharply increased, that is, those in which the confrontation takes place along the lines of an ethnic community. The disproportions between the ethnic and social structures in the republics intensified. Back in the 1970s, while maintaining the mono-ethnicity of the rural population, prestigious professions began to turn into a privilege of the titular nationality, and the share of the latter in the working class was declining. Under the influence of the emigration of the Russian-speaking population in Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, the national working class almost disappeared. Kazakhs made up no more than 1% of workers in industry in the mid-80s, and today their share has dropped to 0.5%.

Synopsis on the history of Russia

As perestroika developed, the importance of national problems. 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 in 1939 (which for the first time in many years was in the center of attention of the press) became the reason 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 the recognition of the state status of the national language (formulated first in the Baltic republics, then in Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, Armenia, and, ultimately, as the movement expanded and deepened, put forward in other republics: RSFSR, Belarus, Azerbaijan and the Muslim republics of Central Asia) until the return of the deported peoples to their historical homeland.

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. happened 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.

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. These confrontations were supported and provoked by part of the central leadership of the USSR and the CPSU.

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.

480 rub. | 150 UAH | $7.5 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Thesis - 480 rubles, shipping 10 minutes 24 hours a day, seven days a week and holidays

240 rub. | 75 UAH | $3.75 ", MOUSEOFF, FGCOLOR, "#FFFFCC",BGCOLOR, "#393939");" onMouseOut="return nd();"> Abstract - 240 rubles, delivery 1-3 hours, from 10-19 (Moscow time), except Sunday

Tsai Vladimir Ilyich. Historical experience of interethnic relations in the USSR, Russian Federation (1953-2003): Dis. ... Dr. ist. Sciences: 07.00.02: Moscow, 2004 352 p. RSL OD, 71:05-7/59

Introduction

Section I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND FOR THE FORMATION OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS IN PRE-REVOLUTIONARY RUSSIA AND THE USSR 18

Section II. THE ROLE AND SIGNIFICANCE OF HUMAN RESOURCES IN THE DECISION OF NATIONAL POLICY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 61

Section III. NATIONAL AND CULTURAL POLICY OF THE PARTY AND THE STATE TOWARDS THE PEOPLES OF THE USSR AND THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 115

Section IV. FEATURES OF INTERNATIONAL CONFLICTS ON THE TERRITORY OF THE USSR, THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION 167

Section V. THE STATE OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS AFTER THE COLLAPSE OF THE USSR 263

CONCLUSION 313

NOTES 326

LIST OF USED SOURCES AND LITERATURE 342

Introduction to work

Relevance research topics. The problems associated with the management and functioning of the state in ethnically divided societies are the subject of special attention of modern scientists and politicians. Therefore, the issues of improving interethnic relations, forming a culture of communication, asserting the values ​​of internationalism and friendship of peoples were relevant in all multinational states.

These questions were and remain the most burning for the Russian society. the Russian Federation, as the legal successor of the USSR, is known to be one of the largest multinational states in the world, in which more than 150 nations and nationalities live. Each of them has its own specifics - in terms of numbers, socio-professional structure, type of economic and cultural activities, language, features of material and spiritual culture. The boundaries of the settlement of peoples, as a rule, do not coincide with the boundaries of republics, territories, regions and districts. The intensity of migration processes has a special effect on the number and nature of their settlement in various regions of the Russian Federation. The vast majority of ethnic communities have evolved over the centuries and in this sense are indigenous. Hence their historical role in the formation of Russian statehood and claims to independent national-territorial or, at least, national-cultural formations.

The dramatic collisions of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the aggravation of interethnic relations in almost the entire post-Soviet space dictate the need for study and rethinking

experience of national-political processes. This is due primarily to the fact that in modern conditions the problem of maintaining the unity of the Russian Federation is one of the most important and relevant. The experience of the recent Soviet past teaches that underestimation of the role of the ethnic factor, errors in assessing its real role lead to the accumulation of its huge conflict potential, which can serve as a threat to the integrity of a multinational state. The recent collapse of the USSR also shows how important it is to build national politics and interethnic relations on a scientific basis.

Therefore, according to the doctoral student, the actual problem of modern Russia is the problem of preserving the political, economic, cultural and historical unity of Russian society, the integrity of the territory, the revival on this basis of really strong, mutually beneficial, extremely necessary interethnic relations.

Therefore, without a thorough study of the rich Soviet experience national movements and extract those historical lessons an objective picture of contemporary national relations in Russia is impossible. All this emphasizes the need to study the causes and main stages of national politics and interethnic relations. This is necessary for the formation of such a national policy in the country, which would lead to a more complete development of the peoples inhabiting the Russian Federation.

A study of the problems of interethnic relations in the USSR and in the Russian Federation, in particular, shows that their analysis in relation to different stages historical development of society

It is noted both by its features arising from specific goals and objectives, and by the forms of their resolution.

In this regard, it must be admitted that during the years of socialist construction, interest in the problems of interethnic relations increased markedly. This was especially noticeable in the 60s and 70s. Much attention was paid to the coverage of the activities of the party and the state in the implementation of interethnic policy, i.e. practical side of this problem. It is to this period that the appearance of generalizing monographs in the field of national politics and interethnic relations 1 belongs.

Naturally, in these works, the specifics of national policy and
interethnic relations in the USSR, the role of the national program
The CPSU in the conditions of building a socialist society

were considered solely on the basis of the Marxist-Leninist methodology of approaching the problem as an integral part of general question about the social revolution.

The degree of scientific knowledge of the problem shows that the problem of national policy and interethnic relations in the years under consideration, due to the specifics of the study, began to be studied by domestic historical science relatively recently, and therefore the specific historical picture of the formation of national policy, interethnic relations remains far from complete and unevenly studied. The conceptual basis of all Soviet historiography

Gardanov V.K., Dolgikh B.O., Zhdanko T.A. The main directions of ethnic processes among the peoples of the USSR.// Sov. Ethnography. 1961. No. 4; Groshev I.I. The historical experience of the CPSU in the implementation of the Leninist national policy. -M., 1967; Beam SI. Ethno-demographic processes in the USSR (based on the 1970 census) // Sov. Ethnography. 1971. No. 4; Sherstobitov V.P. Formation of the USSR and historical objects of our country // History of the USSR. 1971. No. 3; Kulichenko M.I. National relations in the USSR and trends in their development; Malanchuk V.E. The historical experience of the CPSU in solving the national question and developing national relations in the USSR.-M., 1972, etc.

national policy and interethnic relations were the theses about the complete and final victory of socialism in the USSR and the beginning of the transition from socialism to communism. In the 1960s, the previously existing ideological framework of scientific works on national issues was supplemented by the concept of developed socialism, the main emphasis of which was placed on the ideas of achieving social and national homogeneity of society.

The state leaders of the USSR declared the "monolithic unity" of the Soviet people, that the national question in the USSR was "successfully resolved." Hence all the literature of this time in iridescent colors. painted a cloudless picture of national and interethnic relations in the USSR. Secondly, an analysis of the historiography of this period shows that “in the USSR, on the one hand, the flowering of all nations is taking place, on the other hand, their rapprochement”, which was first heard at the XXII Congress of the CPSU in the report “On the Program of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union”. They tried not to notice the inconsistency and multidirectionality of these statements.

A number of works by Soviet scholars of this period were aimed at reviewing the main directions of criticism of bourgeois "falsifications" of the development of national and interethnic relations in the USSR. The authors of these works, although they pointed to the survival of chauvinism and nationalism in the Soviet Union, at the same time, explained this by backward cultural and religious traditions, the weakness of atheistic and international education, as well as anti-Soviet propaganda.

"Groshev I.I., Chechenkina O.I. Criticism of the bourgeois falsifications of the national policy of the CPSU. - M, 1974; Bagramov E.A. The national question in the struggle of ideas. - M., 1982; B> rzhuaznaya historiography of the formation and development of the USSR. - M., 1983; Criticism of falsifications of national relations in the USSR. - M., 1983, etc.

A number of studies in the 1960s and 1970s were devoted to the general achievements of national policy in the USSR. Despite the fact that the name of such a theoretician of national relations as Stalin was not mentioned in scientific works. In literature, the Stalinist model of building socialism in the previously backward national republics was rehabilitated; 3 covered ethnic processes in the USSR - internationalization, assimilation, the emergence and formation of a new historical community "Soviet people"; 4, considerations were expressed about the dialectic of the national and international in the development of Soviet society in the process of rapprochement and integration of the peoples of the USSR. 5 At the same time, first of all,

"Sherstobitov V P The formation of the USSR and the historical subjects of the peoples of our country // History of the USSR. 1972. No. 3. Kukushkin Yu.S. Problems of studying the history of creation // History of the USSR. 1972. No. 6 .; Gardanov V.K., Dolgikh B .O., Zhdanko TA The main directions of ethnic processes among the peoples of the USSR // Soviet ethnography.] 961 № 4, Brook S.I. No. 4.; Groshev I. I. Historical experience of the CPSU in the implementation of the Leninist national policy. - M., 1967.; Kulichenko M. National relations in the USSR and trends in their development; Malanchuk V. E. Historical experience of the CPSU in solving the national question and Development of National Relations in the USSR, Moscow, 1972.

4 The Soviet people - a new historical community of people. - Proceedings of the interuniversity scientific concept (October 15-19, 1969). - Volgograd, 1969.; Kaltakhchyan SR. Leninism about the essence of the nation and the way of forming an international community of people. M., 1976.; Kim M P The Soviet people are a new historical community of people. - M, 1972. "Abd>latipov R.G., Burmistrov T.Yu. Lenin's policy of internationalism in the USSR: history and modernity - M, 1982; Bagramov E.A. Lenin's national policy of achievement and prospects. - M., 1977; Burmistrov T.Yu.Regularities and features of the development of socialist nations in the conditions of building communism.

L. 1974, Dialectics of the international and national in a socialist society, - M, 1981; Drobizheva L.M. Spiritual community of the peoples of the USSR: a historical and sociological essay on interethnic relations. - M, 1981; Kaltakhchyan SR. Marxist-Leninist theory of the nation and modernity. - M., 1983; Kulichenko M.I. National relations in the USSR and trends in their development. - M., 1972; His own. The rise and rapprochement of the socialist nations in the USSR. - M, 1981; Metelitsa L.V. The rise and rapprochement of the socialist nations. - M, 1978; National relations in a developed socialist society. - M., 1977; Likholat A.V., Patiboblaska V.F. In a single family of peoples. - M, 19789; Rosenko M.N. Patriotism and national pride of the Soviet people. -L., 1977; Sulzhenko V.K. Internationalism at the stage of developed socialism - the implementation of the Leninist national policy of the CPSU in Ukraine - Lvov, 1981; Tsameryan I.P. Nations and national relations in a developed socialist society. - M., 1979, etc.

emphasized the objective nature of the formation and development of a "new interethnic community" - the "Soviet people" on the basis of a common economic space and the Russian language as the language of all-Union communication, 6 secondly, often the dialectics of national and international in the development of Soviet society was viewed through the prism of the formula and the mutual enrichment of the two tendencies of socialism in the development of nations and national relations—the flourishing and rapprochement of nations.” It is obvious that such a limitation of this problem did not reveal in its entirety and complexity the dynamics of the development of this most important task of society. Some researchers have invariably emphasized that history does not provide us with convincing material for the conclusion about the withering away of nations. The problem of dialectical contradictions in the national sphere of the USSR was not only not considered by many authors, but even the term "contradiction" itself is not even mentioned in many publications. 7

Works on national policy in the USSR, published in the 1970s and 1980s, acquire a new quality. In a number of these works, national

6 Kulichenko M.I. National relations in the USSR and trends in their development. - M., 1972; Kim M.P. Correlation of national and international in the life of peoples: its typology. // Fraternal unity of the peoples of the USSR. - M., 1976; Drobizheva L.M. Spiritual community of the peoples of the USSR (Historical and sociological essay on interethnic relations). - M., 1981; The development of national relations in the USSR.-M., 1986, etc.

B>rmistrova T.Yu. National policy of the CPSU in the conditions of mature socialism. - In the book: National policy of the CPSU. -M., 1981; Burmistrova T.Yu., Dmitriev O.L. Friendship united: culture international communication in USSR. - M., 1986, etc.

Modern ethnic processes in the USSR. M. 1977; The main directions of the study of national relations in the USSR. - M., 1979.; Social policy and national relations (based on the materials of the All-Union scientific and practical conference "Development of national relations in the conditions of mature socialism." - M., 1982; "Experience and problems of patriotic and international education." - Riga, July 28-30, 1982; Problems of perestroika : social aspect. - M., 1984; Semenov B.C., Jordan M.V., Babakov V.G., Samsonov V.A. Interethnic contradictions and conflicts in the USSR. - M., 1991; Kukushkin B.S., Barsenov A. K. On the issue of the concept of the national policy of the Russian Federation - Ethnopolis // Ethnopolitical Bulletin of Russia -

relations and national policy are considered in a generalized form, attempts are made to identify key points in them in order to get closer to understanding the origins and causes of the collapse of the USSR and modern national problems in Russia and do not affect the problems we are studying.

In the 1990s, researchers were faced with the task of rethinking all the accumulated experience in the field of interethnic relations. During these years, many works were published on this issue 9, which covered the problems of interethnic relations between the peoples of Russia, the war in Chechnya, the problems of the Russian-speaking population, who, through no fault of their own, found themselves abroad as small peoples in the newly formed national states in the near abroad.

In general, it should be noted that these works raise the question of the relationship between national and international factors; the question of the general culture of our thinking in

M, 1992, No. 1.; Will Russia share the fate of the USSR? The crisis of interethnic relations and federal policy - M, 1993 .; Mikhalin V.A. National policy as a factor of state building. - M, 1995.; Kalinina K.V. National minorities in Russia - M., 1993; Bugai N.F., Mekulov D.Kh. People of power "Socialist experiment" - Maykop, 1994, etc.

Yu Boroday. From Ethnic Diversity to National Unity// Russia on a New River Beige. -M., - 1991.; A.I. Vdovin. Features of ethno-political relations and the formation of a new statehood in Russia (historical and conceptual aspects) - M., - 1993; M.N. G> godly. Protection and self-defense of nationalities // Ethnopolitical Bulletin. -M., - 1995. - No. 4; A.I. Doronchenkov. Interethnic Relations and National Policy in Russia: Actual Problems. -M., -1995; L M Drobizheva. Nationalism, Ethnic Self-Consciousness and Conflicts in a Transforming Society: Basic Approaches to Study // National Consciousness and Nationalism in the Russian Federation in the Early 1990s. -M., -1994; A.G. Zdravomyslov. Variety of interests and institutions of power. -M., -1994; V.Yu. Zorin. national policy- legal basis// National policy of Russia: history and modernity. - M., -1997; K.V. Kalinin. Institutes state power- Regulators of interethnic relations. - M., -1995; L. M. Karapetyan. Facets of Sovereignty and Self-Determination of Peoples // State and Law. - 1993 - No. 1; N I Medvedev National policy of Russia. From unitarism to federalism. -M „-1993. Interethnic relations in the regions of the Russian Federation. -M., -1992; Interethnic Relations in the Russian Federation// IEARAS Annual Report. -M., -1998; V.I. Tsai. Interethnic relations in the USSR and the Russian Federation. -M., - 2004 and DR-

the national question, without which it would be difficult to count on making a real contribution to the solution of the problems of national and interethnic relations, taking into account the problems that have matured here. In this regard, the book “The National Policy of Russia. History and Modernity” (Kuleshov SV, Amanzholova D.A., Volobuev O.V., Mikhailov V.A.), which is the first study in the domestic national policy at all its stages and in the relationship

theoretical constructions with practical implementation.

Many issues of the ethnological situation in the USSR, in its individual regions, are reflected in the collection of articles “National Processes in the USSR”, written by scientists from the Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology named after N.N. Miklukho-Maclay and the Center for the Study of Interethnic Relations of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Attention is drawn to the articles by V. Muntyan, V. Tishkov, S. Cheshko, in which a new level of understanding of the most characteristic tasks in the development of national relations is visible, their typological groups are singled out, and the policy of M. Gorbachev during the years of perestroika is highlighted through the prism of critical analysis. eleven

The monograph by scientists F. Gorovsky and Yu. Rymanenko, published in 1991, deserves special attention. The main interest for us is chapter two, "The results of the path traveled: successes and deformations." The authors, without detracting from what was done in the interethnic sphere, noting how the level of socio-economic development, education, culture of the union and autonomous republics rose during the years of Soviet power, emphasizing that deep, progressive changes have occurred in the life of every nation and nationality,

National policy of Russia. History and modernity. - M., 1997. 1 National processes in the USSR: collection of articles. - M., 1991.

Gorovsky F.Ya., Rymanenko Yu.I. National Question and Socialist Practice: An Experience of Historical and Theoretical Analysis. - Kyiv: Vishcha school, 1991. - 225 p.

considerable attention was paid to the analysis of problems, mistakes, miscalculations in
national policy. The source base of the monograph consists of
various publications, archival sources were not used.
Let us now turn to the works written and published after
Belovezhskaya meeting. Of considerable interest is the monograph
^ researchers-historians A.I. Zalessky and P.N. Kobrintsa, in which

along with great achievements in economic and cultural construction, mistakes and miscalculations are analyzed, especially in the field of language construction. Profoundly and conclusively, the authors expose modern falsifiers of the history of national relations in the USSR.

Based on the foregoing, as well as on the fact that the interethnic
problem is one of the most complex and acute problems of any state,
4fc, which requires a special approach and everyday attention, in

the dissertation aims to reveal the most urgent tasks of national policy and interethnic relations, their effectiveness, problems and contradictions in 1953-2003.

In connection with the goal, as well as relying on the accumulated research experience, widely involving the results of existing publications in the field of interethnic relations, new documentary and archival materials, the author decides the following tasks:

reveal the historical background of the formation
interethnic relations in pre-revolutionary Russia and the USSR;

explore the role and importance of human resources in solving
f|i national and international relations;

Zalessky A.I., Kobrinets P.N. On national relations in Soviet Belorussia: historical essays. - Grodno: State University, 1992. - 192 p.

to analyze the national and cultural policy of the party and the state in the system of interethnic relations of the peoples of the USSR and the Russian Federation;

show the features of interethnic conflicts on the territory of the USSR, the Russian Federation,

summarize the state of interethnic relations in the Russian Federation after the collapse THE USSR.

Subject of study are the national policy and interethnic relations in the Soviet, Russian societies in 1953-2003.

Defining chronological framework research (1953-2003), the author proceeded from the fact that in these years, along with the painful manifestations of echoes of unjustified repressions of national personnel, especially leaders and intellectuals in the 30s - early 50s, there was an active renewal process that affected after the death of I. Stalin, all spheres public life including national public policy. The atmosphere of democratization born at the 20th Congress of the CPSU gave a powerful impetus to social progress and inspired the country. The flow of scientific discoveries was carried out precisely by the Soviet man, who was the first to pave the way into space. The standard of living, education and culture of the masses grew. In national literatures - fireworks of bright poetic names. Along with this, the moral and political unity of the nations and nationalities of the country grew stronger.

In subsequent years, the active development of nations continued, the processes of democratization of the most important sphere of life of the Soviet state - national personnel policy, deepened, the training of specialists in economics, science, culture, management, military affairs from representatives of all nations and nationalities was widely deployed.

In the USSR, national culture and art have reached a high level, much has been done to develop national languages, national literature, national traditions, etc.

At the same time, the national factor was sometimes underestimated; it was not always taken into account that national relations retain their specificity and relative independence and develop according to their own special laws. The scope of the use of national languages ​​of some republics of the USSR has narrowed. During the reforms of the second half of the 1980s, the existing contradictions in the national sphere still remained.

The 90s of the last century, which laid the foundation for the formation of the Russian state. During these years, the Constitution of the Russian Federation was adopted (December 12, 1993), agreements “On the delimitation of jurisdiction and mutual delegation of powers between the state authorities of the Russian Federation and the state authorities of the subject” were signed, the strengthening of the vertical of power, etc., began.

At the same time, during this period, the concept of national policy was adopted, as well as federal laws that affect the solution of the interethnic issue and national statehood: on national-cultural autonomy of May 22, 1996; on Guarantees of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples of the Russian Federation of April 16, 1999; about general principles organization of legislative (representative) and executive authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation dated September 22, 1999, etc. At the regional level, a lot of work is also being done to improve national policy and interethnic relations. It has become especially active in the 21st century.

The dissertation was based on published and unpublished materials. Published materials are mainly service records and nationality of members of the leaders of party and state bodies, the army, public organizations, etc. The periodical press was used to cover almost all the problems studied in the dissertation.

The dissertation also uses unpublished documents identified by the author in the archives of the years. Moscow, Minsk, Kyiv. In particular, the empirical material was obtained from the following state archives: 1) the state archive of the Russian Federation. - F. 5508; 2) Russian State Historical Archive. - F. 776; 3) Center for storage of special documentation. - F. 5, 89; 4) Central State Archive of the Republic of Belarus. - F. 1; 5) National archive of the Republic of Belarus. - F. 4, 74, 974; 6) Archive of the information center of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Republic of Belarus. - F. 23; 7) Archive of the Main Information Bureau of Ukraine. - F. 4; 8) Central State Archive of the Authorities and Administration of Ukraine. - F. 288.

Valuable materials reflecting the implementation of the national policy are concentrated in the funds of the union and republican ministries and departments, in particular, the State Planning Committees of the CSO, culture, education and others. Various aspects of the problem under consideration are covered in certificates, information, reports sent by ministries and departments of the republics to party and higher state bodies. Of great importance for understanding the topic are office notes(for intra-apparatus, official use) heads of departments of party committees different levels and Departments of Affairs of the Councils of Ministers of the Union Republics,

addressed to the secretariats of regional committees, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Union republics, the Central Committee of the CPSU and the Councils of Ministers of the republics of the USSR on various issues of economic, cultural and national development.

Of great importance for writing the work were the materials of party and state statistics, periodicals. The study also used articles, speeches, speeches of the leaders of the USSR, the RSFSR, Ukrainian SSR, the Byelorussian SSR and other regions of the country, as well as the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, etc.

Evaluating the entire array of sources, it should be noted that they do not always give an adequate idea of ​​the problem under study. Therefore, the necessary verification (re-checking) of them was carried out in order to confirm the stated facts. In addition, many questions in the sources are focused only on positive data, are interpreted one-sidedly, sometimes schematically. This state of the sources was taken into account, and their data were critically comprehended in the course of the study.

However, the analysis historical sources, published documents and archival materials, made it possible to consider the problem objectively, over a period of almost forty years, a very controversial and dramatic period, to reveal those problems and issues that were not previously the subject of special study. The author believes that this study will help to better understand and comprehend many pages of recent history in the field of national politics and interethnic relations.

Scientific novelty of the research is as follows: 1. First of all, a wide range of documents and materials have been identified that make it possible to reveal the content of national policy and interethnic

relations in the period we are studying, many of the documents are introduced into scientific circulation for the first time; 2. The prerequisites and reasons for the aggravation of contradictions are revealed, the role and place of state authorities in resolving existing conflicts and easing tensions in interethnic relations are shown; 3. Based on the collected and generalized, previously unstudied documentary material, new historical material on the problems of national politics and interethnic relations of the Soviet society of the Russian Federation, in 1953-2003, is harmoniously introduced into the fabric of the study; 4. The mechanism of conspiracy in signing the Belovezhskaya agreements on the collapse of the USSR was studied, a complex of negative circumstances, both internal and external, was shown, which, according to the author, played a significant role in the collapse of the Soviet Union, which caused severe consequences in the sphere of national, economic and other areas development of the former republics of the USSR; 5. A mechanism for the formation new concept national policy and interethnic relations in the regions of Russia, taking into account the current state of the Russian Federation.

Practical significance of the study consists, first of all, in the fact that its provisions and conclusions, as well as documentary material on national policy and interethnic relations, introduced into scientific circulation for the first time, can be used by specialists in solving problems related to national and interethnic processes, as well as scientists, university professors , school teachers in the preparation of generalizing works on national issues and special courses on the history of Russia, diploma and term papers of students of historical faculties of universities, etc.

Approbation of work. The main content of the study is reflected in the monograph, textbooks, articles, collections of scientific papers,

The structure of the work is determined by the objectives of the study. It consists of an introduction, five sections, a conclusion, a list of sources and references.

historical prerequisites for the formation of interethnic relations in pre-revolutionary Russia and the USSR

Investigating the problem, we note that by the beginning of the XIX century. Russia was a huge continental country that occupied a vast area of ​​Eastern Europe, Northern Asia and part of North America (Alaska and the Aleutian Islands). During the first half of the 19th century, its territory increased from 16 to 18 million square meters. km due to the accession of Finland, the Kingdom of Poland, Bessarabia, the Caucasus, Transcaucasia and Kazakhstan. According to the first revision (1719), there were 15.6 million people of both sexes in Russia, according to the fifth (1795) - 7.4 million, and according to the tenth (1857) - 59.3 million (excluding Finland and the kingdom Polish). Natural population growth in the first half of the XIX century. was about 1% per year, and the average life expectancy was 27.3 years,1 which was generally typical, as shown by foreign demographic calculations, for "the countries of pre-industrial Europe". Low life expectancy was due to high infant mortality and periodic epidemics.

In addition, there were other causes of these disasters. In particular, more than 9/10 of Russia's population lived in rural areas. According to the 1811 census, the urban population numbered 2765 thousand people, and according to the 1863 census - already 6105 thousand, that is, over half a century it increased by 2.2 times. However, its share in relation to the entire population increased insignificantly during this time - from only 6.5 to 8%. The number of cities themselves has increased from 630 to 1032 over half a century. However, among them prevailed small towns: at the beginning of the XIX century. Of the 630 cities, 500 had less than 5,000 each, and only 19 had more than 20,000 inhabitants. This ratio between small and large cities was practically preserved even by the beginning of the 60s of the 19th century. The largest cities were both "capitals" - St. Petersburg and Moscow. Petersburg in the first half of the 19th century. increased from 336 to 540 thousand, and Moscow - from 275 to 462 thousand people. At that time, the official division of settlements into cities and villages was carried out on an administrative basis. Therefore, there were many large commercial and industrial villages, which, by the nature of the occupation of the inhabitants and even in appearance, were real cities (for example, the large factory village of Ivanovo, which surpassed even the provincial city of Vladimir in terms of the number of inhabitants). Such industrial villages were Pavlovo, Kimry, Gorodets, Vichuga, Mstera. However, they continued to remain in the position of villages, because most of them belonged to large landowners-tycoons - Sheremetevs, Panins, Golitsyns, Yusupovs, Vorontsovs. The right of landlords to own such villages hindered the process of town formation. So, the village of Ivanovo received the status of a city only in 1871, when it finally freed itself from all its obligations in relation to its former owner, Count Sheremetev.

In administrative terms, the European part of Russia was divided into 47 provinces and 5 regions (Astrakhan, Tauride, Caucasus, the land of the Don Army and the land of the Black Sea Army). Subsequently, the number of provinces increased due to the division of some of them and the annexation of new territories. The regions of Astrakhan and Tavricheskaya received the status of provinces. Siberia according to the administrative division of 1822 was divided into Tobolsk, Tomsk, Omsk, Irkutsk, Yenisei provinces and the Yakutsk region. In the 50s of the XIX century. Kamchatka, Trans-Baikal, Primorsky and Amur regions were also formed.5

The role and importance of human resources in solving national policy and interethnic relations

The study of this problem showed that in its positive solution, human resources play an extremely important role, that is, those workers who are directly involved in the development and stabilization of national and interethnic relations.

In this regard, the priority role belongs to the selection of leadership personnel on the basis of business qualities, and not on national grounds, which in any state was considered and is considered a special definition of its high morality. In the republics, territories and regions of the former USSR, they tried to adhere to the principle of selecting and appointing leading personnel in all areas National economy, party, Soviet and other public bodies, taking into account a sound combination of their nationalities. This process was controlled by both party and Soviet bodies.

In the process of working on this problem, we studied in detail several of the largest republics of the former USSR within our period - 1953-2003. So, for example, in the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Belarus, among the heads of departments, in addition to Belarusians and Russians, Ukrainians also worked in some periods. So, as of January 1, 1960, there were 4 Belarusians (50 percent), Russians 3 (37.5 percent), Ukrainians - 1 (12.5 percent).1 The share of Belarusians in this job group tended to increase. As of January 1, 1975, there were 8 Belarusians (61.5%), Russians 5 (38.5%). Belarusians headed the departments of science and educational institutions, culture, heavy industry and transport, chemical and light industry, construction and urban economy, Food Industry, administrative bodies, organizational and party work. Russians - departments of propaganda and agitation, foreign relations, Agriculture, trade and consumer services, general.2 As of January 1, 1985, Belarusians were in charge of 10 departments (this is 62.5%), Russians 6 (this is 37.5%).3

Among the secretaries of the regional party committees of Ukraine (as of January 1, 1960 - 114 people, as of January 1, 1985 - 126 people), in addition to Ukrainians and Russians, statistics recorded Belarusians (as of January 1 of the corresponding year: 1980 - 1; 1985 - 2).4 In the 60s, among the secretaries of the regional party committees of Ukraine - Ukrainians were from 78 to 82 percent, in the 70s - from 82 to 85 (and on January 1, 1975 - 87 percent). As of January 1, 1985, this figure had dropped to 78.5 per cent. But the share of the secretaries of the regional committees of the titular nation was significantly higher than its share in the KPU.5 The share of the first secretaries of the regional committees - Ukrainians during the study period was even higher than the secretaries as a whole. It did not fall below 84 percent, and on January 1, 1970 they were 88 percent, on January 1, 1980 - 92 percent.6 Thus, the share of first secretaries of regional party committees - Ukrainians was 20, in some periods 26 percent higher share of Ukrainians in the Communist Party of Ukraine. This is important to note, since it was these 21-23 people who ruled the republic. Among the secretaries, including the first ones, of the regional committees of the Communist Party of Ukraine, as we see, only the Slavic superethnos was represented.

National-cultural policy of the party and the state in relation to the peoples of the USSR and the Russian Federation

When studying this problem, first of all, it should be noted that in the conditions of the economic and cultural development of nations there is a certain inequality in the system international relations. When developing a business strategy, it is important to consider natural features and industrial infrastructure. For example, the Republic of Belarus lags behind its neighbors in economic development by several times, but its natural conditions favorable for light and food industry, forestry and woodworking industry, tourism, etc. Disproportion in the development of infrastructure in the republics, violation of the principles of social justice in relations within national formations and between them, worries the national consciousness, often leading it to a partial connection with religious and patriarchal tribal traditions, to the emergence of national isolation. There were gross violations of the sovereign rights of the Union republics, the lack of rights of autonomous entities, a lag in the development of national cultures, a crisis or pre-crisis state of many forms of cultural development and enrichment of the peoples of the USSR, and in particular, the peoples of Belarus, Ukraine, Russia.

Among the many forms of national and cultural policy of the state are monuments of architecture and art. Therefore, the organization of the case for the protection of monuments of architecture and art is the most important component of national and interethnic relations in the USSR during the period under study. In this regard, on January 23, 1963, Minister of Culture Furtseva sent a note to the Central Committee of the CPSU on the state of protection of monuments in the country, their promotion and study. At the same time, she emphasized that there were most serious shortcomings in this matter. Among them, E. Furtseva called the main and most serious - departmental disunity in the system of protection of cultural monuments. As a result of this, in a number of union republics (Ukrainian SSR, BSSR, Armenian SSR, Lithuanian SSR, etc.), the protection of monuments is under the jurisdiction of the State Construction Committee of the Republics (architectural monuments) and the Ministry of Culture (art monuments), there is no single system of subordination and in the network of restoration workshops .

Given this situation, the Minister of Culture of the USSR informed the Central Committee of the CPSU about cases of extremely irresponsible attitude of local bodies for the protection of the most valuable cultural monuments and the executive committees of the Soviets of Working People's Deputies to their preservation. So, the Council of Ministers of Belarus, on the proposal of the executive committee of the Vitebsk City Council on September 23, 1961, decided to exclude from the lists of monuments accepted for state protection, the most valuable work of ancient Russian architecture of the XII century, a monument of all-Union significance - the former Church of the Annunciation. In December 1961, at the direction of the city executive committee, the monument was destroyed almost to the ground. Rubble from the walls of the XII century was used in the construction of roads. The Council of Ministers of the Republic of January 8, 1962 revised its decision and restored the monument in the lists, from which only part of the walls remained.

NATIONAL POLICY AND INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS. COLLAPSE OF THE USSR

Democratization of society and the national question. The democratization of public life could not but affect the sphere of interethnic relations. Problems that have been accumulating for years, which the authorities have tried to ignore for a long time, manifested themselves in sharp forms as soon as freedom wafted in.

The first open mass demonstrations took place as a sign of disagreement with the number of national schools decreasing from year to year and the desire to expand the scope of the Russian language. In early 1986, under the slogans "Yakutia - for the Yakuts", "Down with the Russians!" student demonstrations took place in Yakutsk.

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

Even more actively than in previous years, there were demands for the restoration of the autonomy of the Crimean Tatars, the Germans of the Volga region. Transcaucasia became the zone of the most acute interethnic conflicts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The leaders of the national movements, in an effort to secure mass support for themselves, placed particular emphasis on the fact that their republics and peoples were "feeding Russia" and the Union Center. As the economic crisis deepened, this instilled in the minds of people the idea that their prosperity could be ensured only as a result of secession from the USSR.

For the party elite of the republics, an exceptional opportunity was created to ensure a quick career and well-being.

"Gorbachev's team" turned out to be unprepared to propose ways out of the "national impasse" and therefore constantly hesitated and was late in making decisions. The situation gradually began to get out of control.

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

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

Gorbachev's reaction was at first harsh. In relation to Lithuania, for example, economic sanctions were adopted. However, with the help of the West, the republic managed to survive.

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

All this made Gorbachev belatedly announce the start of the development of a new Union Treaty.

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

The main idea embodied in the draft of the new treaty was the provision on granting broad rights to the union republics, primarily in economic sphere(and later even - the acquisition of economic sovereignty by them). However, it soon became clear that Gorbachev was not ready to go for that either. Since the end of 1990, the union republics, now enjoying great freedom, decided to act independently: a series of bilateral agreements were concluded between them in the field of the economy.

In the meantime, the situation in Lithuania became aggravated, the Supreme Council of which passed laws one after another, formalizing in practice the sovereignty of the republic. In January 1991, in an ultimatum form, Gorbachev demanded that the Supreme Council of Lithuania restore the full operation of the Constitution of the USSR, and after their refusal, he introduced additional military formations into the republic. This caused clashes between the army and the population in Vilnius, as a result of which 14 people were killed. The tragic events in the capital of Lithuania provoked a violent reaction throughout the country, once again compromising the Union Center.

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

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

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

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

On the morning of August 20, the Supreme Soviet of Russia issued an appeal to the citizens of the republic, in which it regarded the actions of the State Emergency Committee as a coup d'état and declared them illegal. At the call of President Yeltsin, tens of thousands of Muscovites took up defensive positions around the building of the Supreme Soviet in order to prevent its assault by troops. On August 21, the session of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR began its work, which supported the leadership of the republic. On the same day, Soviet President Gorbachev returned from Crimea to Moscow, and members of the State Emergency Committee were arrested.

The collapse of the USSR. An attempt by members of the GKChP to save the Soviet Union led to the exact opposite result - the disintegration of the unified state accelerated. Latvia and Estonia declared independence on August 21, Ukraine on August 24, Belarus on August 25, Moldova on August 27, Azerbaijan on August 30, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan on August 31, Tajikistan on September 9, Armenia on September 23, and Turkmenistan on October 27 . The Allied Center compromised in August turned out to be of no use to anyone.

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

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

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

What you need to know about this topic:

Socio-economic and political development of Russia at the beginning of the 20th century. Nicholas II.

Domestic politics tsarism. Nicholas II. Strengthening repression. "Police socialism".

Russo-Japanese War. Reasons, course, results.

Revolution of 1905 - 1907 The nature, driving forces and features of the Russian revolution of 1905-1907. stages of the revolution. The reasons for the defeat and the significance of the revolution.

Elections to the State Duma. I State Duma. The agrarian question in the Duma. Dispersal of the Duma. II State Duma. coup d'état June 3, 1907

Third June political system. Electoral law June 3, 1907 III State thought. The alignment of political forces in the Duma. Duma activities. government terror. The decline of the labor movement in 1907-1910

Stolypin agrarian reform.

IV State Duma. Party composition and Duma factions. Duma activities.

The political crisis in Russia on the eve of the war. The labor movement in the summer of 1914 Crisis of the top.

International Position Russia at the beginning of the 20th century.

Beginning of the First World War. Origin and nature of war. Russia's entry into the war. Attitude towards the war of parties and classes.

The course of hostilities. Strategic forces and plans of the parties. Results of the war. The role of the Eastern Front in the First World War.

The Russian economy during the First World War.

Workers' and peasants' movement in 1915-1916. Revolutionary movement in the army and navy. Growing anti-war sentiment. Formation of the bourgeois opposition.

Russian culture of the 19th - early 20th centuries.

Aggravation of socio-political contradictions in the country in January-February 1917. The beginning, prerequisites and nature of the revolution. Uprising in Petrograd. Formation of the Petrograd Soviet. Provisional Committee State Duma. Order N I. Formation of the Provisional Government. Abdication of Nicholas II. Causes of dual power and its essence. February coup in Moscow, at the front, in the provinces.

From February to October. The policy of the Provisional Government regarding war and peace, on agrarian, national, labor issues. Relations between the Provisional Government and the Soviets. The arrival of V.I. Lenin in Petrograd.

Political parties(Kadets, Social Revolutionaries, Mensheviks, Bolsheviks): political programs, influence among the masses.

Crises of the Provisional Government. An attempted military coup in the country. Growth of revolutionary sentiment among the masses. Bolshevization of the capital Soviets.

Preparation and conduct of an armed uprising in Petrograd.

II All-Russian Congress of Soviets. Decisions about power, peace, land. Formation of public authorities and management. Composition of the first Soviet government.

The victory of the armed uprising in Moscow. Government agreement with the Left SRs. Elections to the Constituent Assembly, its convocation and dissolution.

The first socio-economic transformations in the field of industry, agriculture, finance, labor and women's issues. Church and State.

Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, its terms and significance.

Economic tasks of the Soviet government in the spring of 1918. Aggravation of the food issue. The introduction of food dictatorship. Working squads. Comedy.

The revolt of the left SRs and the collapse of the two-party system in Russia.

First Soviet Constitution.

Causes of intervention and civil war. The course of hostilities. Human and material losses of the period of the civil war and military intervention.

The internal policy of the Soviet leadership during the war. "War Communism". GOELRO plan.

The policy of the new government in relation to culture.

Foreign policy. Treaties with border countries. Participation of Russia in the Genoa, Hague, Moscow and Lausanne conferences. Diplomatic recognition of the USSR by the main capitalist countries.

Domestic policy. Socio-economic and political crisis of the early 20s. Famine of 1921-1922 Transition to a new economic policy. The essence of the NEP. NEP in the field of agriculture, trade, industry. financial reform. Economic recovery. Crises during the NEP and its curtailment.

Projects for the creation of the USSR. I Congress of Soviets of the USSR. The first government and the Constitution of the USSR.

Illness and death of V.I. Lenin. Intra-party struggle. The beginning of the formation of Stalin's regime of power.

Industrialization and collectivization. Development and implementation of the first five-year plans. Socialist competition - purpose, forms, leaders.

Formation and strengthening of the state system of economic management.

The course towards complete collectivization. Dispossession.

Results of industrialization and collectivization.

Political, national-state development in the 30s. Intraparty struggle. Political repression. Formation of the nomenklatura as a layer of managers. Stalinist regime and the constitution of the USSR in 1936

Soviet culture in the 20-30s.

Foreign policy of the second half of the 20s - mid-30s.

Domestic policy. The growth of military production. Extraordinary measures in the field of labor legislation. Measures to solve the grain problem. Military establishment. Growth of the Red Army. Military reform. Repressions against the command personnel of the Red Army and the Red Army.

Foreign policy. Non-aggression pact and treaty of friendship and borders between the USSR and Germany. The entry of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus into the USSR. Soviet-Finnish war. The inclusion of the Baltic republics and other territories in the USSR.

Periodization of the Great Patriotic War. First stage war. Turning the country into a military camp. Military defeats 1941-1942 and their reasons. Major military events Capitulation of Nazi Germany. Participation of the USSR in the war with Japan.

Soviet rear during the war.

Deportation of peoples.

Partisan struggle.

Human and material losses during the war.

Creation of the anti-Hitler coalition. Declaration of the United Nations. The problem of the second front. Conferences of the "Big Three". Problems of post-war peace settlement and all-round cooperation. USSR and UN.

Beginning of the Cold War. The contribution of the USSR to the creation of the "socialist camp". CMEA formation.

Domestic policy of the USSR in the mid-1940s - early 1950s. Restoration of the national economy.

Socio-political life. Politics in the field of science and culture. Continued repression. "Leningrad business". Campaign against cosmopolitanism. "Doctors' Case".

Socio-economic development of Soviet society in the mid-50s - the first half of the 60s.

Socio-political development: XX Congress of the CPSU and the condemnation of Stalin's personality cult. Rehabilitation of victims of repressions and deportations. Intra-party struggle in the second half of the 1950s.

Foreign policy: the creation of the ATS. Input Soviet troops to Hungary. Exacerbation of Soviet-Chinese relations. The split of the "socialist camp". Soviet-American Relations and the Caribbean Crisis. USSR and third world countries. Reducing the strength of the armed forces of the USSR. Moscow Treaty on the Limitation of Nuclear Tests.

USSR in the mid-60s - the first half of the 80s.

Socio-economic development: economic reform 1965

Growing difficulties of economic development. Decline in the rate of socio-economic growth.

USSR Constitution 1977

Socio-political life of the USSR in the 1970s - early 1980s.

Foreign Policy: Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Consolidation of post-war borders in Europe. Moscow treaty with Germany. Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE). Soviet-American treaties of the 70s. Soviet-Chinese relations. The entry of Soviet troops into Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan. Exacerbation of international tension and the USSR. Strengthening of the Soviet-American confrontation in the early 80s.

USSR in 1985-1991

Domestic policy: an attempt to accelerate the socio-economic development of the country. An attempt at reform political system Soviet society. Congresses of People's Deputies. Election of the President of the USSR. Multi-party system. Exacerbation of the political crisis.

Exacerbation of the national question. Attempts to reform the national-state structure of the USSR. Declaration on State Sovereignty of the RSFSR. "Novogarevsky process". The collapse of the USSR.

Foreign policy: Soviet-American relations and the problem of disarmament. Treaties with leading capitalist countries. The withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan. Changing relations with the countries of the socialist community. Disintegration of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance and the Warsaw Pact.

Russian Federation in 1992-2000

Domestic policy: "Shock therapy" in the economy: price liberalization, stages of privatization of commercial and industrial enterprises. Fall in production. Increased social tension. Growth and slowdown in financial inflation. The aggravation of the struggle between the executive and legislative branches. The dissolution of the Supreme Soviet and the Congress of People's Deputies. October events of 1993. Abolition of local bodies of Soviet power. Elections to the Federal Assembly. The Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993 Formation of the presidential republic. Aggravation and overcoming of national conflicts in the North Caucasus.

Parliamentary elections 1995 Presidential elections 1996 Power and opposition. An attempt to return to the course of liberal reforms (spring 1997) and its failure. The financial crisis of August 1998: causes, economic and political consequences. "Second Chechen War". Parliamentary elections of 1999 and early presidential elections 2000. Foreign Policy: Russia in the CIS. The participation of Russian troops in the "hot spots" of the near abroad: Moldova, Georgia, Tajikistan. Russia's relations with foreign countries. The withdrawal of Russian troops from Europe and neighboring countries. Russian-American agreements. Russia and NATO. Russia and the Council of Europe. Yugoslav crises (1999-2000) and Russia's position.

• Danilov A.A., Kosulina L.G. History of the state and peoples of Russia. XX century.

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

2. National policy in the 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 liquidation by the February revolution, stimulated the centrifugal aspirations of the heterogeneous parts of the empire. The national question in tsarist Russia was 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, in Russian society, the split along social sign 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 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 to late XIX in. 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 created 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, historical memory local population was even more durable. 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.

There was only one way out for the central government - the inclusion of the nobility of the conquered or annexed lands into the ruling elite. 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 proper. 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: “From the middle of the 19th century. 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 hundred-year-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 outbreak of the 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 be automatically 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 would include the rest of the Soviet republics as autonomies) 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, as well as the declarative right "to exit from union state”, the mechanism of such an “exit” remained out of sight of 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 large cities as 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 very process of separating autonomous entities was extremely arbitrary and often proceeded not from the interests of ethnic groups, but was subject to 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, it was decided that the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region would become part of 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 was created, the collapse of which is 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 a short time caused powerful psychological stress, impoverishment, hunger, and disease. Economic leveling was accompanied by interference in the spiritual sphere: atheistic propaganda was carried 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 positions 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. Nationality "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 reforms 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 coup 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 within the framework of the empire was restored with the help of provocations and the use of military force, which is contrary to the principles of democracy, the adherence to which most of the new states have declared. In the early 1920s the peoples that made up the 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 rails of an 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 of 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.