100 years of the USSR. As the Ukrainians spoiled Putin's holiday

It is difficult to determine the real attitude to the USSR of the Russian powerful, because their personal career is due to its success itself, which at one time Vladimir Putin called the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the XX century.

They are not marked by the desire to restore the socialist system and their actions, because by concentrating the fullness of power in their hands, the Russian authorities could continue to "lead the country to communism" without encroaching in foreign territories. The fact that in the Kremlin's information campaigns, at least for internal use, nostalgia according to the Soviet Union is now played central.

It is interesting that Russian propagandists often try to combine that common sense does not allow - imperial and Soviet historical heritage. This confirms that the Russian authorities are more interested in the territorial achievements of the USSR, not the way of life in which much of the Russians miss. In fact, in a detailed analysis of the peculiarities of the existence of the Soviet Union, one can find some logic in such contradictory formulations by the Russian elite of its attitude to it.

After all, the USSR was quite original formation, where the difference between the declared and the real state of things was the norm and the basic basis of its creation. On December 30, 100 years have passed since the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, which declared the construction of "Paradise on Earth", and in fact became a real hell for millions of its inhabitants.

It is obvious that, starting with a full -scale invasion, the Russian leaders dreamed of celebrating this anniversary, again controlling the key part of the USSR - Ukraine, but thanks to our Armed Forces - it did not happen. And we will place all the dots over "and" in this matter, knocking out another resistance from the feet of a hostile propaganda machine. Let's start with the fact that the date of December 30, 1922 is a propaganda stamp, which carries a very symbolic implication.

It is the activity of the Ukrainian Bolsheviks (the same initiative from below, which Stalin eventually eradicated, giving rise to the famous "scoop" mentality)) led to the delaying the actual formation of the USSR for more than half a year.

Until 1936 (the introduction of the "Stalin Constitution", which is considered a formal point of reference of the classical USSR with unanimous decision -making, full monopoly of the party on public opinion and state in the economy) was considered the date of formation of the USSR on July 6, 1923. At that time, the Declaration and the Union Treaty were ratified, and on December 30, 1922, these constituent documents were only voted as a basis.

This delay took place from the submission of a representative of the Ukrainian delegation, Mikhail Frunze, with this idea in a rather rigid form opposed Joseph Stalin, for whom it was a fundamental issue to complete everything on the eve of the new 1923. In the end, the delegates and the Congress of Soviets on which all this was solved was supported by the representative of the USSR.

The future "father of peoples" seems to have not forgived this red commander, because in the process of usurpation of power in the hands of Stalin, Mikhail Frunze died in a mysterious circumstances at the operating table at forty -year -old.

And when Stalin finally managed to capture the fullness of power, he wiped out of history about his failure - and so in the USSR celebrated the false date of their formation, which is quite symbolic, since it was the formation of the USSR that was quite a good thing. So let's understand what preceded this strange history and how the most unfortunate union of the XX century was formed, and possibly all human history.

In 1917, the weak and indecisive temporary government of Russia was dropped by the armed revolution of the radical part of the Russian Social Democrats-the Bolsheviks. This movement advocated the restructuring of the world on the basis of social justice, which its followers saw in economic equality, which was achieved by eliminating trade and monetary relations. The Bolsheviks also declared the right of oppressed nations to self -determination.

In general, this movement was "good and against all the bad", and practice was more prose and cruel enough. Unfortunately, Ukrainians who just won their freedom had to make sure that the Bolshevik declarations were worth. Our state was admired several times by the Red Army during 1917-1920 and every time was accompanied by cruel repression against all unworthy of the new order.

Moreover, despite the declaration of freedom, everyone who opposed the integrity of the former empire was declared enemies. The same fate befell Belarus, the peoples of the Caucasus and Central Asia. However, the intricacies of the then international politics played an interesting joke with the Bolsheviks and their enslaved peoples.

So the Ukrainians smiled fate, and after a military defeat, which seemed to erase all the expectations of the Ukrainian people for their own statehood, the puppet Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic began to delegate real powers to almost in the borders of the Ukrainian People's Republic. A similar situation was with the Caucasian peoples where the Caucasian Confederation was created, and Belarusians, who were also allowed to form their Soviet Socialist Republic.

At the same time, the peoples of Central Asia were included directly in the Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic. So Moscow had already demonstrated the difference in the perception of European and Asian diplomacy. In addition to foreign policy factors, internal problems played a role. The power of the Bolsheviks was shaky. They physically did not have the resources to set the unconvitaity with their regime.

Thus, after the defeat of the main parts of the Ukrainian armies, during 1919-1921, winter campaigns took place-throwing sabotage groups from the controlled Poland of Ukrainian lands. The Kholodnoyarsk Republic and numerous smaller underground organizations continued. With the exacerbation of the situation, Ukraine could flash. Therefore, the Kremlin decided to sleep the vigilance of the conquered peoples and made concessions.

In the spring of 1921, the Bolsheviks, retreating from their ideals, went to mitigate in economic policy - the so -called new economic policy, which was called "Lenin Tango" (because the leader of the Bolsheviks stated that these concessions were a temporary step back to then take two forward). The same concerned the national issue.

It was also important to exhibit a formally independent Ukrainian republic in peace negotiations with Poland in Riga - and the Entente in further diplomatic activity to delegitimize the delegations of the UNR and ZUNR as representatives of the Ukrainian people. In December 1920, the USSR was formally recognized as an independent state. Over the next two years, the young republic began to transfer more and more powers.

And the Bolshevik leadership of the USSR increasingly liked to feel the leaders of an independent state, not the Russian province. However, given that there were few natives of Ukraine among them, one can safely assume that the leaders of Soviet Ukraine motivated the desire to assert personal power, not patriotic feelings. But in a military defeat - even declarative independence was better than full return to the empire.

An important role was played by strife in the leadership of the Bolshevik Party. Skillfully using intra -party intrigues, the USSR's leadership "slipped between drops" quite cleverly and even began to disagree with some decrees coming from Moscow. The fact is that, despite the formal independence and the existence of its state bodies, Moscow controlled the newly formed republics through a common Red Army and a single party structure of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks) - the RCP (b).

That is, the head of the USSR government Christians Rakovsky as a member of the RCP (b) was subordinated to the supreme party bodies located in Moscow. In fact, the independence of the republics was a purely declarative phenomenon. It was on the party line that Stalin sought the curtailment of "independence" of the newly formed Soviet republics and their entry on the rights of autonomies into the RSFSR. This process took place against the background of a desperate struggle for power in the party.

Vladimir Lenin, because of his health, could be less and less fulfilled by his duties of the party leader and the struggle for influence and the ability to take the place of the leader flared up among his associates. Therefore, part of the party leadership eagerly played the opponents of the Autonomization Plan to weaken the hardware positions of his author, Joseph Stalin.

And the main ram of this plan was the leadership of the USSR, while it swore in loyalty of the party and in no way opposed the Soviet system. It was the pre -party struggle, not the real struggle for the national rights of Ukrainians. Specifically, the leadership of the USSR in the person of Mikhail Frunze, Christian Rakovsky and Grigory Petrovsky spoke for strengthening her personal influence both in the middle of the USSR and at the general party level.

In the end, the Autonomous Plan of Stalin (the entry of the newly formed republics on the rights of autonomies to Russia) was blocked by Lenin. It was decided to form a formal union of equal republics. At that time, Stalin set the purpose to combine this unification as possible and to limit the subjectivity of the republics as short as possible.

Already at the end of December, the All -Union Congress of Soviets was also convened, which had to approve two documents - a declaration on the formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Union Treaty. And here again the Ukrainian delegation went against him. As already mentioned, Mikhail Frunze openly opposed Stalin's initiative and still achieved the delay in the final formation of the new state by July 6, 1923.

It was perhaps the greatest defeat of Stalin in his political career. As a result, the treaty was changed towards the increase in the rights of the USSR respects, in particular, a nationality council was introduced, which was to monitor the observance of the declared rights of the peoples of the USSR. Since then, Ukraine has been perceived as a dangerous nurser of free thinking, where even sent from Moscow, leaders have become more like a free -thinking "nationalist".

It should be noted that even in the conditions of the USSR already formed in the USSR, Ukrainianization and the Red Renaissance took place (the temporary revival of Ukrainian culture; because most of its figures were shot in the 1930s, it was also called "shot revival"). All these processes Stalin curtailed when he finally concentrated power in his hands in the 1930s. Then he dealt with his political opponents and curtailed any even theoretical independence of the republics.

It just could not be in an conditions when the constitutional authorities themselves became a butaphor. The only task of deputies in the councils was to unanimously approve pre -made decisions. Therefore, no one was engaged in the elimination of the declarative powers of the Soviet republics with the inherent Russians. Even more. Completely feeling the boundless power, Stalin introduced the Ukrainian and Belarusian Soviet republics to the UN on the rights of the founding countries.

These independent republics added to Moscow's votes in the newly created organization. It is worth noting that the RSFSR has not entered the UN, the modern Russian Federation has taken the place of the whole USSR with no one agreed with anyone (at least in public).

However, when the regime was weakened and the Communist Party lost full control over the butaphorny authorities, Ukraine has fully used it on paper in the years in the 1920s, providing a completely legal exit from the Union of "equal and sovereign republics". Now the Kremlin, by analogy of centuries, continues to engage in legal absurdity, forming a puppet state and signing treaties with them.