Why isn't Gorbachev being tried for treason? Deputies want to try Gorbachev for the collapse of the USSR

WHY DID THE STATE DUMA REFUSE TO CONDEMN GORBACHEV AND YELTSIN?
Is it because the current government continues the policies of those mentioned above, who betrayed and sold Russia wholesale and retail, and are their direct heirs, in spirit and letter of the law?
Let's look at the issue in more detail...

While discussing the tragic events, society somehow lost sight of one inconspicuous but significant incident that happened at the end of March in the State Duma.
Why can it be considered iconic?

If only because the deputies made their essence very clear, refusing not only to “recognize as criminal,” but even simply to “condemn” the activities of two politicians, whose names are perceived by the majority of Russian citizens over 30-35 years of age as a symbol of betrayal...

Below is a screenshot with the results of voting in the State Duma on the issue of conviction, a message from one of the deputies and a media interview about this, allowing us to draw conclusions about the degree of closeness of our “people’s representatives” to the people...
[Spoiler (click to open)]

---
We agree, but we do not support. How the State Duma refused to condemn Yeltsin and Gorbachev
351 out of 450 deputies decided not to vote

The State Duma refused to condemn the rule of Gorbachev and Yeltsin. The LDPR faction introduced a draft resolution that proposed recognizing the activities of the first President of the USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev, and the first President of the Russian Federation, Boris Yeltsin, as destructive and anti-people.
It was an attempt, at least at the level of declarations and verbal interventions, to reverse the trend of slide into Yeltsinism, but parliament did not take such a step.
Communist Party deputy Vera Ganzya said in an interview with Nakanune.RU that the relevant Duma committee “agrees with the project, but does not support it,” and in United Russia they even talked about freedom as Yeltsin’s main achievement.

[Spoiler (click to open)]

Vera Ganzya: I don’t see any practical benefit. Another move designed to appeal to the masses of voters who today curse both Gorbachev and Yeltsin. The LDPR is a party that clearly has its finger on the pulse, which is why its representatives come up with such proposals.
If this project were adopted, it would simply mean that the 7th convocation of the State Duma recognizes the actions of Yeltsin and Gorbachev as unlawful and treasonous.
It would be recognized that those who ruled the country at that time did much more harm than good. Although representatives of United Russia said the opposite.
Yeltsin's main achievement, they claimed, was that he gave us freedom.
What freedom did he give us? Freedom of corruption, impunity, capital flight?
But there is no practical benefit here, of course.

Question: Maybe in the end, after a few steps, this would lead to a trial of Gorbachev, for example?

Vera Ganzya: Nothing like that. There would simply be one more attempt, which would not be the first, by the way, (to adopt such a resolution – note by Nakanune.RU). The Communist Party of the Russian Federation has already come up with such a project several times.
(With)
---
In general, everything is natural, Putin, being Yeltsin’s protege, continues the same liberal anti-Russian policy as his spiritual father, while both Yeltsin and Putin are just as pro-American, pro-Western Russian leaders as Gorbachev.

The only differences are in the rhetoric, under Putin it has become jingoistic, despite the fact that Russia’s national interests are trampled upon by him in exactly the same way as in the Gorbachev and Yeltsin periods, but this is not done openly, but to the accompaniment of mantras about “rising up with knees."

While discussing the tragic events, society somehow lost sight of one inconspicuous but significant incident that happened at the end of March in the State Duma.
Why can it be considered iconic?

Last Thursday, the State Duma vigorously discussed a draft resolution proposed by the LDPR on recognizing the anti-people activities of Boris Yeltsin and Mikhail Gorbachev.

In A Just Russia, only 4 votes were cast “FOR”, which naturally calls into question the opposition of this faction as a whole.

In Russia, on the one hand, the 90s are declared to be dashing years, and on the other, the current political regime is clearly the heir to the regime of Boris Yeltsin.

Firstly, because Vladimir Putin became president at the instigation of Boris Yeltsin.

Secondly, economic and social policy has not changed compared to the 90s, financial opportunities have simply become greater.

I wonder how United Russia will now explain its public curses against the 90s, since in fact they approved the policies of Boris Yeltsin.

In my opinion, it would be necessary to distinguish between the activities of Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin.

Mikhail Gorbachev steered the ship poorly and said: “Don’t trust the models, let’s sail where the current takes us.” That is, he was a passive participant in the destruction of his country.

As for Boris Yeltsin, his plan was precisely to unhook the so-called “extra” cars, represented primarily by the states of Central Asia, believing that this step would lead Russia to prosperity.

As you might expect, it turned out that it is better to eat a pie together than zilch alone.

“Freed” from Central Asia and other republics of the Soviet Union, Russia did not become richer. At best, even in terms of formal economic indicators, it has not quite reached the level of the RFSR in 1990, much less 1985.

If we talk about the social component, the real standard of living of the majority of the population has decreased significantly. Suffice it to recall that the student scholarship in the Soviet Union was 80% of the subsistence level, now it is only 14%.

During the Soviet period, a beginning teacher received two minimum wages for one rate, about which the intelligentsia “grumbled.”

And a modern beginning teacher, for example, in Omsk, earns quite a bit more than one subsistence level in 24 hours. And there are many such examples.

From a practical point of view, the discussion of this resolution turned out to be ineffective.

However, for those who are able to think, this result shows who is who in the State Duma. (c)

---
We agree, but we do not support. How the State Duma refused to condemn Yeltsin and Gorbachev
351 out of 450 deputies decided not to vote

Question: How did it happen that the State Duma refused to condemn the actions of Yeltsin and Gorbachev? Was the majority really against it?

Vera Ganzya: The Communist Party of the Russian Federation supported this project. 40 people voted in favor. There are 42 people in our faction, but two were absent, and in our case everyone votes for himself. I have information on other factions as well. A total of 81 deputies out of 87 who took part in the voting voted “for”. One person voted for United Russia, five voted against, one abstained, and 332 did not vote at all. They have a total of 339 people in their faction. A Just Russia has an interesting position: four people voted for the resolution, while the remaining 19 people did not vote. LDPR - 40 people, but 35 deputies were present, all of them voted in favor. A total of 81 people were in favor, so the resolution was not adopted.

Question: But without United Russia there was still no chance of carrying out this resolution?

Vera Ganzya: Of course. But we were able to ask questions that related to the historical period referred to in the resolution. Vladimir Volfovich, for example, was asked why he and the LDPR faction did not vote for Yeltsin’s impeachment at one time. He said that they were then saving the country and the parliament, which would have been disbanded in this case. This explanation did not seem reasonable to me.

Question: Somehow, this law was not “killed” at the committee stage, it was passed, but they did not vote for it?

Vera Ganzya: Every deputy has the right to come up with a legislative initiative, including from a faction, and this initiative must be considered. All bills that were introduced into the State Duma, and all draft resolutions that were introduced in this way, were always considered without fail. It is clear that they did not support this project.

By the way, they talked a lot about the Yeltsin Center. There were many very sharp, sharp and even offensive, I would say, questions. In such moments, I believe you cannot split into two, you must either have a position or not. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation supported this project because it believes that the activities of Yeltsin and Gorbachev are not so much a betrayal of the interests of the Communist Party, but a betrayal of the national interests of the entire country.

Question: About the bifurcated position. RIA Novosti quoted the conclusion of the relevant committee regarding this project, which said that the committee shares the authors’ feelings of regret, but cannot support it. How is that?

Vera Ganzya: Yes, yes. This project was considered by the State Duma Rules Committee, and there were many questions to Olga Savastyanova (head of the State Duma Rules Committee - note by Nakanune.RU), who presented the committee’s conclusion on this project. Emotionally, of course, we agreed with the tone of the project, but turned the conversation into some kind of legal form, saying that today we cannot give a legal assessment of the resolution.

Question: “We agree, but we do not support.” It happens?

Vera Ganzya: The Rules Committee tried to sit on two chairs today. It often happens here that the correct and obvious things are denied by the United Russia faction, and the explanations that are provided during the discussion, as a rule, do not satisfy either legal norms or elementary logic.

Question: Perhaps, after all, the resolution itself was drawn up sloppily, with errors?

Vera Ganzya: You know, the resolution was about condemning the actions taken by Gorbachev and Yeltsin, so we cannot talk about a legal assessment, Savastyanova is right here. But the resolution simply suggested summing up and giving some kind of assessment of the actions of these individuals. The United Russia faction often behaves this way. They say that in their hearts they are for it, but they need to improve it. This is how good and relevant bills and similar resolutions are shelved, although this specific resolution did not solve anything in principle.

Question: I would just like to ask, what was the practical essence of this resolution?

Question: Maybe in the end, after a few steps, this would lead to a trial of Gorbachev, for example?

Vera Ganzya: Nothing like that. There would simply be one more attempt, not the first, by the way, (to adopt such a resolution - note by Nakanune.RU). The Communist Party of the Russian Federation has already come up with such a project several times.
(With)
---
In general, everything is natural, Putin, being Yeltsin’s protege, continues the same liberal anti-Russian policy as his spiritual father, while both Yeltsin and Putin are just as pro-American, pro-Western Russian leaders as Gorbachev.

Any unbiased observer who has removed the zombie pan from his head even for a short while and turned on common sense will be forced to admit the obvious facts...
And if someone is too lazy to do it themselves, you can look at at least one of the many posts on this topic, here -

Quote from the post:
"..PUTIN = GORBACHEV
On the one hand, we seem to wag our fingers at the Americans on TV, and on the other, we continue to invest in American treasury bonds.
To be fair, this kind of ambiguity has been around for a long time. Despite the ostentatious anti-Americanism of the officialdom, which began around 2002 (it was then that the Americans firmly decided to build their own missile defense system), the Kremlin in fact pursued a consistently pro-American policy: it closed the base in Cuba, ensured the transit of American cargo to Afghanistan (where heroin production began to experience a real renaissance precisely during the period of occupation), sank the Mir.

In recent domestic history there is already an example of a leader who seemed to threaten the West, but at the same time tried in every possible way to do good for it.
This is Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev. Yes, and Yeltsin, no, no, yes, he also loved to shake his stunted nuclear fists into the sunset. This didn't change the reality at all.
In this sense, Vladimir Vladimirovich’s policy is fundamentally no different from Yeltsin’s or Gorbachev’s, except that there is more hysterical populism, sovereign and pseudo-patriotic rhetoric, and petrodollars made it possible to carry out a purely symbolic rearmament of the army and navy, replenishing them with isolated samples of modern equipment - so that there was something to show to an enthusiastic electorate at the parade.
At the same time, they are silent about the fact that the scientific and industrial base that produces this very equipment is being carefully destroyed.
The same Kurganmashzavod, which produces the futuristic Kurganets-25 infantry fighting vehicles, was declared bankrupt on February 29, 2016. All that remains of the Volgograd Tractor Plant are almost nothing but ruins.

One interesting pattern should also be noted, and it concerns not only foreign policy: as soon as any inconvenient question arises, our “national leader” immediately withdraws himself. One gets the impression that our president exists only as a leader for various victories, even if he (and the modern state of the Russian Federation as a whole) has nothing to do with these victories. And if problems begin, then there seems to be no “leader” of the nation. Anyone is to blame, depending on the situation: speculators, governors, the State Department, “Russian fascists”, magnetic storms, reptilians, Navalny. But he, Putin, is not to blame. He didn't know/was busy/not aware.
The question arises: is Putin responsible for anything at all? I am sure that those who today shout, “don’t stop Putin from playing chess” thirty years ago said something like “don’t stop Gorbachev from carrying out Perestroika and New Thinking.” Now, however, they will never admit to such a thing.

The “geopolitical genius” manages to get into trouble even in small things. Why, for example, do the top leaders of the Russian Federation stubbornly not call NATO an aggressive bloc that attacked Yugoslavia and Libya - countries that did not attack any of the Alliance members? Why is it that when the West once again declares the “inadmissibility of the forceful redivision of borders,” no one from the Kremlin declares that after Kosovo and Northern Cyprus, you, gentlemen, need to keep your mouth shut? And the answer lies on the surface. Our sleek “patriots” and “statesmen” love to spend their vacations and honeymoons on the picturesque shores of warm countries. Not to mention the billions in foreign banks. And if you go too far with harsh statements, then the “partners” may be completely offended. Modern Russia is an underdeveloped, backward country that could not withstand a military clash even with the alliance of Turkey and Saudi Arabia, not to mention NATO, China, Japan and the United States. Actually, it was for this reason that the Kremlin, lifting up its trousers, so hastily withdrew aircraft from Syria. A real clash, even with Turkey alone, would quickly reveal what all the puffing up of cheeks is worth.." (c)

---
Are you still surprised - why did Putin's United Russia actually block the condemnation of Gorbachev and Yeltsin in the State Duma?

“The real plaintiff before this court is civilization. But the court maintains that the people in the dock are responsible for their actions. The principle of criminal law in any civilized society is the same: every person who supplies a deadly instrument of crime is guilty.”
From the film "The Nuremberg Trials"

…Of course, it’s not about a man named Mikhail Gorbachev.
By and large, I don’t care whether he personally ends his days on the gallows, in prison, or dies in his bed. He didn’t kill people out of bloodthirstiness - it was just his job.

Undoubtedly, there were worse general secretaries in the history of the CPSU than him.
But I have no desire to figure out who was a good general secretary and who was bad. Let the communists themselves judge this. My job is to establish one simple truth that the world so stubbornly refuses to acknowledge: the communist regime was criminal. As one of the consequences of this, any General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, good or bad, was a murderer. In this sense, the example of Stalin, of course, proves a lot; but only the example of Gorbachev proves everything. After all, in the film “The Nuremberg Trials,” which I quote, the central figure of the drama is not the Nazi monster, but the liberal Minister of Justice, the idol of the German intelligentsia and the author of Germany’s most democratic constitution. A life sentence for just such a person was needed by German society in order to realize the voluntary or involuntary complicity of each and everyone in the crimes of the regime.

The charges that I bring against Gorbachev in an English court are self-evident: the Tbilisi massacre of April 9, 1989, the Baku massacre of January 20, 1989, and the Vilnius massacre of January 13, 1991.
Let's leave aside everything else for now: Afghanistan, Chernobyl, Alma-Ata, Karabakh, Dushanbe, Riga. Let us leave for the time being the fact that under the majority of Politburo documents on support for international terrorism in the 80s. The signature of the Secretary of the Central Committee Gorbachev is, of course, among all the others. Let's, first, deal with three indisputable crimes where Gorbachev's guilt has been proven and even generally known.

My accusations are not unfounded.
Already now, at the very initial stage, I have provided the court with 150 pages of evidence: the results of investigations into these events by parliamentary commissions and public organizations (Human Rights Watch, Memorial, Shield); secret documents from the Gorbachev archive, photographs, videos. These days, many living witnesses come to me, ready to testify against Gorbachev; including the former President of Lithuania Vytautas Landsbergis. If there is an impartial hearing, we will prove Gorbachev’s guilt.

But it is precisely this impartial hearing that the modern world does not want to allow.
It is no coincidence that the Russian intelligentsia criticizes me so unanimously. As if there wasn’t all this melodrama of their relationship with Gorabchev, whose hands they first kissed as a good tsar-reformer, and then so picturesquely, beautifully “disappointed” in him - and precisely because of Tbilisi! Precisely because of Vilnius! They tore their clothes and proclaimed eloquent curses. Let us remember: a half-million demonstration took to the streets of Moscow in March 1991, protesting against the massacre in Vilnius. And even now none of them claims that Gorbachev is innocent - they prefer to talk about the need for a broad view of his role in history and the relativity of all things. What does this have to do with history when it comes to criminal offences?

But to be honest, I'm not surprised.
My critics aren’t worried about Gorbachev either. Perhaps, even subconsciously, they actively do not want exactly what I want: Nuremberg clarity on the issue of the crimes of communism. After all, according to the Nuremberg account, Gorbachev was not the only one with a problem.

And the West is no better.
It all started with the fact that Gorbachev came to London for an indecently luxurious celebration of his birthday: a gala concert at the Albert Hall, tickets costing up to one hundred thousand pounds, a crowd of Hollywood stars, the press praising the hero...
And this is precisely at a time when his old colleagues - Arab dictators, who are no better or worse than him - are being overthrown and even bombed by the whole world. Not at all embarrassed by double standards, the entire Western elite, political and otherwise, hastened to dance around the Soviet Mubarak. They say that the English government even insisted that the Queen attend the celebration, but to Her Majesty’s credit, she was never seen there.

No sooner had this concert begun than my lawyers demanded a warrant from the Westminster Court for the arrest of the hero of the day.
But alas, English justice is no longer what it used to be. Judge Wickham's decision is frankly based on telephone law: they say, I called the British Foreign Office, and the Foreign Office said that Gorbachev was here on a “special mission” from the Russian government and would meet with the Prime Minister; therefore, he has diplomatic immunity... By the way (if no one lied to anyone), this information is important. Nothing had previously been announced about Gorbachev's meeting with the prime minister; about his “diplomatic mission” too (after all, it seems that he is now listed in the opposition). What are these secret Anglo-Russian negotiations behind our backs? And if the Ministry of Foreign Affairs misled the court, then this is a scandal...

Here, it would seem, is a sensation for the press.
But the press is not investigating anything, because “Gorbi, Gorbi” - the most sacred cow of the Western establishment - is involved in the case.

The authorities - judicial and others - are clearly trying to gain time so that Gorbachev has time to leave.
The appellate authority, where my lawyers complained, scheduled a hearing only for this Friday, despite the obvious urgency of the case. Neither the British Foreign Office nor the Russian embassy stubbornly respond to my requests about Gorbachev’s “special mission”. Gorbachev himself completely disappeared to no one knows where.

By the way, for twenty years now Gorbachev has been denying his guilt in these crimes, despite the generally known evidence.
If he is innocent, then I am doing him an invaluable service - I am giving him a chance to restore his good name. It should be a matter of honor for him to appear in a British court and answer the charges. But a sense of honor has never been a distinctive feature of the CPSU general secretaries. Personally, I am convinced: Gorbachev is guilty - and therefore he has now hidden himself in some kind of crevice, leaving diplomats and bureaucrats to drown this matter in delays. Whether this will succeed, we will see today.

By and large, everything I have been doing in public life for many years - whether in the West or in the East - has one single goal: investigating the crimes of the CPSU and the KGB in the spirit of Nuremberg.
And if we do this, then we cannot avoid dealing with Gorbachev’s crimes. There are no statutes of limitations in the Nuremberg principles, and there is no immunity either for a “special mission” or for a “role in history.” Simple criminal law reigns here: every person, good or bad, is responsible for his murders. And before we remember merit as mitigating circumstances, we must hear the verdict: guilty or not guilty? And before we forgive, we must hear repentance, without which even the Pope cannot forgive sin.

As my old friend Edik Kuznetsov rightly comments on this matter: “At one time, I found a formula that, in my opinion, adequately resolved the issue of reward for a good deed and punishment for a crime. In the 60s, the camps were full of Nazi collaborators. Some of them used to say: “Yes, I shot, but in 1943 I saved a Jewish boy, and in 1944 I saved a partisan.” Well, for this you are entitled to a medal, but for the executions - you should go to the gallows. You’ll hang there like that, with a medal on your chest.”

The truth is that in our world there are neither absolute villains nor perfect saints, and it is very difficult to say how you yourself would act in such dramatic situations.
Most people do not want to believe that they are capable of evil deeds, and therefore we tend to portray those who commit atrocities as monsters and monsters. This makes it easier for us. But if only monsters were to blame for the unheard-of atrocities of the 20th century, then, as the judge correctly says in the film I mentioned, the moral significance of such events would be no greater than the moral significance of a giant earthquake.

I would like to hope that we are able to draw conclusions from our history, comprehend the reasons for our misfortunes, and make adjustments to our behavior in order to avoid their repetition.
After all, if such an exorbitant evil happened in our world, then all of us, his contemporaries, are guilty of it, to a greater or lesser extent. This line that separates a contemporary from an accomplice is too subtle. We seem too weak and insignificant, not wanting to see that the path to crime consists of small compromises. But our duty to the memory of millions of those innocently exterminated is precisely to understand this and try to be better. Otherwise, their death will be completely meaningless.

Drug dealer Gorbachev, the Stavropol case and a dozen high-ranking corpses

Professor, Doctor of Political Sciences writes about Gorbachev’s activities and his rise to power in his article “General Liquidator of the USSR M. Gorbachev” Panarin Igor Nikolaevich:

“The main role in the collapse of the USSR was played by Stavropol Judas M. Gorbachev, who was brought to power in the USSR with the help of. During the 6 years of his leadership of the USSR, external debt increased by 5.5 times, and the gold reserves decreased by 11 times. The USSR made unilateral military-political concessions. caused the maximum damage to his Fatherland in the history of the country. Not in any country in the world never there was no such leader. Therefore, a Public Tribunal over Judas is needed to identify the reasons that contributed to his rise to power and destructive anti-state activities...”

"When WE We received information about the upcoming death of the Soviet leader (it was about Yu.V. Andropov), then we thought about the possible coming to power with our help of a person, thanks to whom we can realize our intentions. This was the assessment of my experts (and I always formed a very qualified group of experts on the Soviet Union and, as necessary, contributed to additional emigration of the necessary specialists from the USSR). This man was, who was characterized by experts as a careless, suggestible and very ambitious person. He had good relationships with the majority of the Soviet political elite, and therefore his coming to power with our help was possible..." Margaret Thatcher

At the very least, Gorbachev’s anti-Soviet activities began immediately after coming to power, which indicates his preliminary “preparation.” The Gorbachev couple traveled around the world surprisingly often. While still the first secretary of one of the largest regions of Russia, Stavropol, and a member of the CPSU Central Committee in September 1971, the Gorbachev couple visited Italy, allegedly at the invitation of the Italian communists. Based on the results of the Gorbachevs’ trip to Italy, their psychological portraits were probably compiled. They were clarified during Gorbachev’s trip at the head of the party delegation in 1972 to Belgium. Probably, Mikhail Sergeevich was not deprived of attention during his trips to (1975) and during France(1976).

But Western experts could gather the richest information harvest in September 1977 during the Gorbachev couple’s trip to France. They came there on vacation at the invitation of the French communists. Then, in Western special laboratories, psychologists, psychiatrists, anthropologists and other specialists in human souls, based on this information, tried to recognize the character of the Gorbachevs and their vulnerabilities.

Today, M. Gorbachev is a wealthy man, to put it mildly, having not only royalties for his memoirs in the form of bribes from owners from, he has real estate in Europe and beyond. This is a topic for another discussion.

Alexander Yakovlev and Nina Andreeva. The polemical duel between these two people unexpectedly became a major political event 30 years ago

30 years ago, on April 5, 1988, a major political event happened in the USSR. The newspaper Pravda, in an editorial, fired a “volley from all guns” at Stalin and the Stalinists. There was no signature in the editorial, but, as it turned out later, it was written by Alexander Yakovlev, a member of the Politburo of the Central Committee. The main target was a modest university chemistry teacher from Leningrad, Nina Andreeva, who three weeks earlier had published a letter in Sovetskaya Rossiya, “I Can’t Compromise Principles,” with a very cautious and restrained criticism of perestroika. Pravda scathingly called Andreeva’s letter a “manifesto of anti-perestroika forces” and condemned it for its acquittal of Stalin, “dogmatism and conservatism.”
“In numerous discussions taking place today, the question of the role of I.V. Stalin in the history of our country is acutely raised. The publication in “Soviet Russia” does not bypass it either. Declaring support for the Resolution of the CPSU Central Committee on overcoming the cult of personality and its consequences (1956), approval of the assessments given to Stalin’s activities in the latest party documents, the article actually tries to overturn them, to separate socialism from morality. For the sake of his concept, the author turns to Churchill for support. Let us note that the panegyric she cited for Stalin does not belong to Churchill at all. The famous English Trotskyist I. Deutscher said something similar.”

Oh, this crafty appeal to “morality”!.. Here one involuntarily recalls the author of this article in Pravda, Alexander Nikolaevich Yakovlev, who later briefly summarized his views with the words: “Bolshevism is fascism.” And at that moment he was a member of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, secretary of the Central Committee, that is, he stood on the second rung in the CPSU after the General Secretary. Which, of course, coupled with his words about fascism-Bolshevism, goes perfectly with the word “morality.” And later he liked to scribble about morality. For example, when he openly revealed the strategy - his and his comrades-in-arms - during the years of perestroika: “A group of true, not imaginary, reformers developed (orally, of course) the following plan: to use the authority of Lenin to strike at Stalin, at Stalinism. And then, if successful, Plekhanov and social democracy will attack Lenin, liberalism and “moral socialism” will attack revolutionism in general.”

Nina Andreeva surrounded by students

The article dated April 5, 1988 fulfilled the first point of the specified plan: “with the authority of Lenin, strike at Stalin, at Stalinism.” And then it went, it went... At present, the process has gone even further than Yakovlev and his colleagues had imagined: he seemed to want to stop at liberalism, but in reality now, with “braces”, Ivan Ilyin and the Uvarov triad, they are hammering at the liberals with might and main, they are only they grunt, “and then, if successful,” Vlasov, Krasnov and - yes, Adolf Aloizovich - will begin to thrash the traditional right. The counter-revolution is like Saturn: it devours its own children with appetite... Unless, of course, it is possible to stop this beneficial process and turn it in the opposite direction, towards socialism...

Nina Andreeva and students

But let’s return to Yakovlev’s article 04/05/1988. There is an interesting phrase that has been developed in literature:
“We are restoring the rights of Truth, clearing it of false and crafty truths that led to dead ends of public apathy, we are learning the lesson of truth given by the 27th Congress of the CPSU. But the Truth turned out to be bitter in many ways.”
Victor Pelevin has an early story “Sleep”, one of the episodes of which undoubtedly inspired the above paragraph. (By the way, the author most likely borrowed the “horned glasses” mentioned in it from the portrait of Alexander Nikolaevich...)
“Not a shadow of a doubt! - said the speaker. - We must tell the whole truth. People are tired.
- Why not? Certainly! – several cheerful voices responded, and everyone started talking at once...
“I see,” the man who slammed spoke again, “we must first find out what will come of all this.” Let's try to form a commission, say, of three people.
- For what?..
– And then, then, that those who will join this commission will first try to tell the whole, whole truth to each other.
Very quickly we agreed on the members of the commission - they were the speaker himself and two men in blue three-piece suits and horn-rimmed glasses, who looked like siblings: they even had more dandruff on their left shoulder... The rest went out into the corridor...
From the room, from where quiet, inaudible voices had been coming all this time, suddenly some gurgling and crackling was heard, followed by complete silence. The whole truth had apparently been told, and someone knocked on the door.
- Comrades! How are you?
There was no answer. In the small crowd at the door they began to look at each other...
- We're breaking it! - they finally decided in the corridor.
The door flew out with the fifth or sixth blow... after which he, along with those who broke the door, found himself in a completely empty room, on the floor of which a large puddle had spread... Although long tongues of urine were still crawling towards the walls, there was no one under the table or behind the curtains, and Three empty suits, burnt from the inside, were hunched over and sagging on the chairs. Cracked horn-rimmed glasses glittered near the leg of an overturned chair.
“Here it is, really,” someone whispered behind him...”

Well, the ending of perestroika is described more than realistically. True, the speaker himself and his colleagues in horn-rimmed glasses, not excluding A.N. Yakovlev, did not burn out, but, unfortunately, remained alive and well, but many other people did it for them, without ranks and regalia...
In the story this is followed by a happy happy ending:
“We decided that we urgently needed to call somewhere, and the tanned man, to whom this was entrusted, was already moving towards the phone, when suddenly everyone exploded with jubilant shouts - ahead, in the corridor, the three disappeared appeared. They were in blue sports shorts and sneakers, rosy-cheeked and cheerful, as if they had come out of a bathhouse.
- Like this! - the one who spoke at the very beginning of the dream shouted, waving his hand. “This is, of course, a joke, but we wanted to show some impatient comrades...”

Alas, in reality everything turned out differently...

More about Nina Andreeva’s article:

More about A. N. Yakovlev:
https://maysuryan.livejournal.com/262423.html

Why didn't the Duma try Gorbachev and Yeltsin?

Comment from the editors of the People's Journalist: such initiatives from Duma parties are nothing more than an imitation of vigorous activity. All parliamentary parties recognized the falsified results of the 2017 Duma elections. The LDPR and the Communist Party of the Russian Federation have lost their influence on decision-making. It is very convenient now to make various populist proposals, creating information noise that does not allow the average person to gather his thoughts and understand the futility of this idle talk. The activities of the Duma are becoming more and more like a circus show. We urgently need to disband this crowd of parasites, drive some of them right out of the gate and hold new elections. The mechanism for improving the health of the political space and society as a whole has already been created. #ProgramSulakshina #HighestValuesofRussia #BigProjectRussia*****WHY DID THE STATE DUMA REFUSE TO CONDEMN GORBACHEV AND YELTSIN?
Is it because the current government continues the policies of those mentioned above, who betrayed and sold Russia wholesale and retail, and are their direct heirs, in spirit and letter of the law?
Let's look at the issue in more detail...

While discussing the tragic events, society somehow lost sight of one inconspicuous but significant incident that happened at the end of March in the State Duma.
Why can it be considered iconic?

If only because the deputies clearly highlighted their essence, refusing not only to “recognize as criminal,” but even simply to “condemn” the activities of two politicians, whose names are perceived by the majority of Russian citizens over 30-35 years of age as a symbol of betrayal...

Results of the vote to recognize the activities of Boris Yeltsin and Mikhail Gorbachev as anti-people
Last Thursday, the State Duma vigorously discussed a draft resolution proposed by the LDPR on recognizing the anti-people activities of Boris Yeltsin and Mikhail Gorbachev. In addition to the LDPR faction, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation faction also voted “FOR”. In A Just Russia, only 4 votes were cast “FOR”, which, Naturally, it calls into question the opposition of this faction as a whole. “United Russia” for the most part did not take part in the voting, and according to the votes cast, the score was 5:1 in defense of Boris Yeltsin. Such voting results are explained by the following contradiction: In Russia, on the one hand , the 90s have been declared dashing, and on the other hand, the current political regime is clearly the heir to the regime of Boris Yeltsin.