The results of Gorbachev's foreign policy: pros and cons. Pros and cons of Gorbachev's rule! (detailed plan)

Left a reply Guest

Pros and cons of Gorbachev's rule The choice of religion by the people is always determined by its rulers. The true religion is always the one professed by the sovereign; the true god is the god whom the sovereign commands to be worshiped; thus, the will of the clergy, which guides the sovereigns, always turns out to be the will of God himself. Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev was born in the village. Privolnoe (Stavropol Territory) March 2, 1931. Father, Sergei Gorbachev, was Russian, and mother, Maria Gopkalo, was Ukrainian, which is associated with the special tolerance of the future politician on the national issue. Mikhail, while still a teenager, worked on a collective farm and at MTS, helping his parents, since the family lived very modestly. At the age of fifteen, Mikhail Sergeevich becomes an assistant combine operator. Pros and cons of Gorbachev's rule At the age of 19, Gorbachev joined the ranks of candidates for the CPSU, having received patronage from teachers and the director of his school. In 1950, Mikhail Sergeevich entered Moscow State University without any exams, and three years later he married Raisa Mikhailovna Titarenko, with whom he would live in a happy marriage until his wife’s death (1999). In 1952, Mikhail Sergeevich joined the CPSU. In August 1968, Gorbachev was elected First Secretary of the CPSU of the Stavropol Regional Committee, holding this position until April 1970. Since 1970, Gorbachev was appointed a member of the Supreme Council. While in power, Mikhail Sergeevich carried out many different reforms, because of which the USSR collapsed, and the monopoly of the CPSU was destroyed. Although very often Gorbachev’s actions were criticized by politicians for inconsistency of actions, for trying to preserve socialism and the previous centrally planned economy. In 1862 (May 15), a company was created to combat unearned income. The issue of fighting drivers, tutors, flower sellers, etc. was raised. Many people have lost their illegal earnings. On the other hand, Gorbachev is partly responsible for increasing life expectancy, working ability of the population and reducing crimes due to alcohol intoxication. In 1985, on May 17, the anti-alcohol campaign in the USSR came into force. Pros and cons of Gorbachev's rule Because of this innovation, alcohol prices increased by 45%, vineyards were cut down, and sugar, used by craftsmen for moonshine, disappeared in stores, which led to the sale of this product only with coupons. As a consequence of Gorbachev’s reforms, in 1989 many goods disappeared from stores, hidden inflation occurred, and, as already mentioned, cards were introduced for a certain group of goods. The hard life of most citizens led to a decline in the birth rate, which was observed until 2001. Under Mikhail Sergeevich, troops were withdrawn from Afghanistan, which was positively received by many compatriots. But in 1986, the facts of the explosion at Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant 26 were partially hidden; such “mystery” left a negative imprint on the politician’s biography. At the end of 1991, Gorbachev resigned, voluntarily relinquishing his powers as head. However, after five years (1996), Mikhail Sergeevich became Chairman of the Board of the International Green Cross. In 2011, on his eightieth birthday, Mikhail Sergeevich received the award of St. Andrew the First-Called. Don't judge a person by what views he holds, but judge by what he achieves with them.

As D. Volkogonov aptly noted, for the West, Gorbachev’s popularity was associated primarily with the fact that he became “a symbol of the departure of the Bolshevik monster from the political scene” (See: D. Volkogonov. Seven Leaders. Gallery of Leaders of the USSR. Book 2, M ., 1995, p. 362).

In December 1990, Gorbachev was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, but the situation within the country did not allow the president to go to receive the prize awarded to him. A considerable part of the population wondered: why was Gorbachev given the prize? The country is in ruins - and he gets a bonus! It was towards the end of 1990 that the gap between the president's foreign policy triumph and the consequences of his policies at home became obvious to many. The situation remained tense in Tbilisi, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Baku, Chechnya, and the Baltic states. At the IV Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR, the country's Foreign Minister E. Shevardnadze, who resigned, issued a warning about the impending coup. Prime Minister N.I. Ryzhkov also spoke at the congress about the activities of destructive forces with “far-reaching goals.” At the congress, it was also proposed to include on the agenda the issue of no confidence in the President of the USSR, which indicated serious dissatisfaction with Gorbachev’s policies in domestic and foreign affairs. Observers noted the president's break with the progressive part of his circle. In December, the Moscow City Council decided to ration the distribution of food products. A budget crisis arose; the USSR entered the new year of 1991 without a plan or budget. These are just a few touches that characterize the situation of the outgoing 1990.

According to the testimony of his assistant Chernyaev, during these days the General Secretary received “stacks of telegrams” from the population, in which Gorbachev was congratulated on the “imperialist prize” for having “destroyed” the Soviet Union, “betrayed” Eastern Europe, and “gave” resources to the Americans , and the media - to the “Zionists” (See: Chernyaev A.S. Six years with Gorbachev: According to diary entries. M., 1993, p. 384).

Against this background, Gorbachev’s foreign policy began to lose support within the country. Describing the situation of those days, Shevardnadze noted that the “shadow” government was regaining surrendered positions, emerging from the shadows and beginning to act openly.” If democratic forces had been united, he notes, this offensive could have been “stopped.” However, the lack of “unanimity” among like-minded people forced him to resign. Political opponents of the retired Minister of Foreign Affairs explained his voluntary resignation by “the desire to evade responsibility for miscalculations allegedly made in foreign policy” (See: Sheverdnadze E. My choice. In defense of democracy and freedom. M., 1991, pp. 20-21 ).

What was foreign policy like in the Gorbachev era according to the testimony of those who created it? What is its assessment by historians?

The biographer of the first president of the USSR, Grachev, notes that Gorbachev, back in the spring of 1985, had a list of priority foreign policy tasks to be solved. In the Secretary General’s work notebooks, among the priorities were: “end the arms race”, “leave Afghanistan”, “establish relations with the USA and China” (See: Grachev A.S. Gorbachev. M., 2001, p. 179). The biographer points out that Gorbachev had to reckon with the foreign policy stereotypes that had developed between the two superpowers - to look at each other “through the embrasure.” By encroaching on this strategic “balance of fear,” Gorbachev, his biographer emphasizes, knocked out one of the most important pillars from under his own chair. If earlier the Soviet people put up with their wretched life and voluntarily gave up their last for defense, then the transformation of yesterday’s enemy into a partner also changed their consciousness - they turned their dissatisfaction with their lives on those who controlled them.

Gorbachev’s opponents blamed him for the fact that when carrying out perestroika, he and his associates “did not care about the ideological, socio-economic, political and historical systemic foundations” of the Soviet system, that the doom of perestroika lay in its “top-level” nature, as a result of which “ power gradually became a foreign body within the system, primarily in relation to its foundations,” that behind the facade of perestroika “there was an energetic process of changing guidelines,” in which Yakovlev and Shevardnadze played the first fiddle. Among the main and, in the opinion of these opponents, “destructive” slogans for the Soviet system of perestroika were the following: universal human values and their priority over class ones, which led to a revision of the results of the Second World War, violation of the agreements of the Yalta and Potsdam conferences, the Helsinki Conference, which declared the inviolability of post-war borders, caused the liquidation of the Warsaw Pact, CMEA, the GDR and “prepared” the collapse of the USSR; entry into world civilization, which became possible for our country only “after the collapse” of the socialist system; democratization of society, which led to the “decentralization and disintegration of power” of Russia; rethinking history, which in fact turned into “spitting on the past”, into a reliable mechanism for “destructing the historical memory of the people” (See: Russia - 2000. Modern political history (1985-1999). Vol. 1. Chronicle and Analytics. M., 2000 , pp. 572-573, 617-618).

Soviet leaders, primarily Gorbachev and Shevardnadze, were criticized “for the loss” of Eastern Europe and Germany, for the isolation and weakening of the country, for erasing the results of the war and its gains through unreasonable political actions, for which entire generations paid an exorbitant price, for the needlessly “spilled by the Soviet blood of the people in the name of liberating Europe from Nazism.” At the ceremony of signing the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, USSR Minister of Defense Marshal D. Yazov said in a narrow circle: “We lost the third world war without firing a single shot” (See: J. Boffa. From the USSR to Russia: The History of an Unfinished Crisis. 1964- 1994. M., 1994, Page 202).

Responding to such accusations, in particular that Gorbachev “surrendered the socialist countries,” the former President of the USSR wrote that these thoughts were put forward by “adherents of imperial ideology,” for whom the right of the strong to dispose of foreign countries as their own is customary, “to play with the destinies of peoples.” " Turning to the recent history of relations between the USSR and the countries of the “socialist commonwealth,” Gorbachev pointed out that in these countries we implanted a modified “Stalinist model of socialism,” and all attempts by these countries to break out of the “friendly embrace” of the superpower were “strictly suppressed.” As an example, he cited events in the GDR in 1953, in Hungary in 1956, in Czechoslovakia in 1968 (See: Gorbachev M.S. Life and Reforms. Book 2, M., 1995, pp. 474-475).

There was no unanimity regarding Gorbachev’s political line among the leaders of the “socialist camp.” Kadar and Honecker did not believe in the “irreversibility” of perestroika and took a wait-and-see approach, Zhivkov warned, citing Khrushchev’s policies, that perestroika could “destabilize the socialist community,” and the leader of the Romanian communists, Ceausescu, took an openly hostile position.

A.V. Kozyrev, appointed Minister of Foreign Affairs of Russia in 1990, when he was an employee of the USSR Foreign Ministry, saw his main task during the years of perestroika as participating in the “dismantling of outdated ideological dogmas.” “The essence of the matter,” he writes in his memoirs, “was to promote into official Soviet documents, right up to speeches on foreign policy issues by the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, “seditious” formulations that, if not immediately, then potentially, would open up opportunities for undermining and then a complete revision of communist dogma." He called E.K. Ligachev his opponents in the Politburo, G.M. Kornienko in the Foreign Ministry, and G.Kh. Shakhnazarov and A.S. Chernyaev his supporters, with the “leading role” of A.N. Yakovlev and E. A. Shevardnadze. In his opinion, Gorbachev, with his statements about new political thinking, “created a kind of cover for such far-reaching interpretations.” Kozyrev was skeptical of Gorbachev and his followers, believing that by 1989 they had exhausted themselves, primarily because they “sought at all costs to remain faithful to the socialist choice, to renew and modernize the Soviet system with a complete lack of understanding of its doom.” Kozyrev saw the origins of the new Russian concept of national security in the “ideas of A.D. Sakharov,” who, in his opinion, combined the thesis of curbing the nuclear arms race with solving the problem of “the relationship between man and the state in our country” (See: Kozyrev A. Transfiguration. M., 1995, pp. 42-46, 72).

Soviet diplomats objected to such a simplified approach to assessing the most complex foreign policy problems facing the Soviet Union at the turn of the 70s and 80s. Thus, according to the same G.M. Kornienko, it was during these years that there were opportunities to reach a compromise with the West in the field of disarmament. He called A.A. Gromyko a “convinced supporter” of the disarmament line, the “main generator” of ideas in this area. It’s a different matter, Kornienko noted, that when it came to developing specific positions, and the military were against this or that decision, Gromyko “did not enter into conflict with them.” In general, he believed that Soviet foreign policy was characterized by “underestimation” and sometimes “ignoring” of the possibilities of strengthening the security of the state by “political means”, rather than by further increasing already excessive defense spending (See: Akhromeev S.F. , Kornienko G.M. Through the eyes of a marshal and a diplomat: A critical look at the foreign policy of the USSR before and after 1985. M., 1992, pp. 40-45).

The XXVII Congress of the CPSU officially proclaimed the country's new foreign policy course and identified three main areas of activity: overcoming confrontation between East and West, resolving regional conflicts, abandoning ideological preferences in relations with other states and recognizing the existing world order. To solve the first task, the meetings of M.S. Gorbachev with US President R. Reagan in Geneva in 1985, in Reykjavik and Washington in 1986, in Moscow in 1988 were of utmost importance. The result of the first meetings was the signing of a joint statement stating , that “nuclear war is unacceptable” because “there can be no winners” and that “the parties will not strive for military superiority over each other.” In December 1987, an agreement was reached on the elimination of Soviet and American medium- and short-range missiles in Europe; the agreement was supplemented by the establishment of a system of mutual control. In addition, the USSR eliminated some of its medium- and short-range missiles located in Siberia and the Far East. The military, primarily the Chief of the General Staff S. Akhromeev, completely shared the position of President Gorbachev.

Western historians and politicians emphasize the fact that it was largely thanks to Gorbachev's foreign policy that the Cold War and the arms race were ended.

In February 1988, Gorbachev announced the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan, which began on May 15, and in February 1989, the last Soviet soldier left Afghanistan. This decision was not easy for Gorbachev. Even under Brezhnev in 1981, the Politburo decided to “lead the matter,” but the whole question was only how, when and under what conditions to leave. According to Soviet data, our country spent 1 billion rubles annually on the Afghan adventure. Gorbachev was worried not only about the decline in the authority of the USSR in the countries of the “third world”, but, as he put it: “We won’t pay our people back: why were so many people killed?” Defense Minister Marshal Sokolov confirmed that “it is impossible to win the war by military means.” Gorbachev’s decision to withdraw Soviet troops from Afghanistan was supported by the Politburo and his closest associates, Ryzhkov and Ligachev. However, even having made the decision to leave, Gorbachev set, as the development of subsequent events in this region showed, an impossible task - not only to “restore a friendly and neutral country,” but to make sure that “the United States does not settle in Afghanistan with its bases.”

During this period, the opposition came to power in almost all socialist countries. In March 1991, the Warsaw Pact Organization officially ceased to exist. Thus, for the first time since 1945, the Soviet Union found itself without military allies in Europe.

The most important event of this period was the unification of Germany. In November 1989, the Berlin Wall, which had divided the German people for more than thirty years, came down. On September 12, 1990, in Moscow, the Federal Republic of Germany, the German Democratic Republic, France, the USSR, Great Britain and the USA signed the Treaty on the Final Settlement in Relation to Germany. Article 1 stated that a united Germany would include the territories of the GDR, the Federal Republic of Germany and “the whole of Berlin.” This agreement also confirmed the “final nature of the borders” of a united Germany, that it “has no territorial claims against other states” and will not make such claims “in the future.” The governments of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic confirmed their renunciation of the “production, possession and disposal of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons” and stated that a reunified Germany would also adhere to these commitments. The agreement provided for the timing of the withdrawal of Soviet troops from the territory of the GDR and Berlin. The right of a united Germany “to participate in unions” was established, the country acquired “full sovereignty over its internal and external affairs” (See: Russia - 2000. Modern political history (1985-1999). Vol. 1. Chronicle and analytics. M ., 2000, pp. 621-623).

How could this significant event happen, what is its assessment in modern historical literature?

According to Western researchers, the problem of the post-war reconstruction of Germany was “central” in the relations between the victorious powers and it also became an “obstacle” to the alliance of the USSR with the Western powers. When the cohesion of one of the opposing military-political blocs - the Warsaw Pact Organization - “began to collapse,” the factors of the split in Germany began to seem “less significant” to German society than the factors of reunification, and the speed and political force of the reunification process “overthrew all resistance” (See. : Ennio Di Nolfo. History of international relations (1918-1999). Translated from Italian. M., 2003, p. 726.

Russian historians noted that when the German question moved to the level of a practical solution, neither Gorbachev, nor the country’s political elite, nor Soviet society itself “were ready for such a turn of affairs.” Initially, Gorbachev limited himself to “general discussions,” but then at a narrow meeting in January 1990, the Soviet leadership put forward the idea of the “six” - the formation of a special negotiating mechanism consisting of the four victorious powers (USSR, USA, Great Britain, France) and two German states (GDR and FRG) to discuss international aspects of the unification of Germany. At the same time, according to Russian historians, the Soviet leadership feared the situation would get out of control and an armed conflict would arise in Europe; it was also "unwilling" and "unable" to use military force to prevent German unification. An important role was played by the fact that in the context of the deteriorating economic situation in the Soviet Union, Gorbachev was counting on receiving foreign loans, including from German banks. Historian Narinsky believes that Gorbachev and his associates “overestimated” the willingness of Western partners to play by the new “rules of the game”, and therefore “did not record an agreement” on abandoning NATO’s subsequent expansion to the east. His general assessment of the reformer’s activities in foreign policy is as follows: Gorbachev made a “great contribution” to ending the Cold War, but “failed (or did not have time)” to lay the foundations of a new world order (See: M.M. Narinsky, M.S. Gorbachev and unification of Germany. Based on new materials / New and recent history. 2004, No. 1, pp. 14-30).

According to Falin, at the final stage of developing decisions on the unification of Germany did not participate neither the Security Council, nor the Presidential Council, nor any other government bodies. “The new military-political map of Europe 1989-1990,” Falin wrote in his memoirs, “was cut by Western standards by M. Gorbachev and his friend (E. Shevardnadze - V.P.).” He wrote that he tried to warn Gorbachev against huge concessions from the USSR to the West on the German issue; in particular, in his opinion, the treaty should have provided for “the non-participation of a united Germany in NATO.” To this proposal, Gorbachev said: “I’m afraid that the train has already left.” There were other alternatives to solving the German problem, Falin is convinced, and no worse than those implemented by Gorbachev (See: V. Falin. Conflicts in the Kremlin. Twilight of the Gods in Russian. M., 1999, pp. 180-193).

According to the Italian historian J. Boffa, German unity in practice meant “the annexation of East Germany by the Federal Republic of Germany” (See: J. Boffa. From the USSR to Russia: The History of the Unfinished Crisis. 1964-1994. M., 1996, p. 198) .

There is an opinion expressed by members of the Soviet intelligence services that the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the GDR came as a surprise to everyone, that no one in the world could have foreseen such a development of events. Therefore, the widespread version that “everything went according to Gorbachev’s plan,” that “he is a traitor,” seems absolutely “absurd.” “It is clear from all of Gorbachev’s actions,” wrote KGB officer I. Kuzmin, “that he did not want the collapse of the GDR, tried to preserve it, but acted indecisively” (See: M. Karpov. The Fall of the Berlin Wall. Even the Chekists did not expect this // Nezavisimaya Gazeta. 1994. November 5).

The foreign policy of the USSR in the post-war period was built in the realities of a “bipolar world”. The military parity of the parties was a guarantee against local conflicts escalating into a global war. By the 1980s, the intensity of the confrontation between systems reached its maximum limit. During the Cold War, exorbitant spending on the “arms race” strained the economy of the Soviet Union. The country's leadership was actively looking for other approaches to solving pressing foreign policy issues.

The coming to power of the next General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee did not foretell significant changes in the foreign policy of the USSR. Preserving tradition, Mikhail Gorbachev declared to the whole world his commitment to the cause of peace, the fight against military threats, strengthening the commonwealth with socialist countries and helping fighters for national independence. He criticized the policies of the West until the appointment of Eduard Shevardnadze as Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR.

The new minister immediately took up the normalization of relations with the United States and its satellites, the elimination of confrontation in regional conflicts and the policy of disarmament. Subsequently, when a group of new people motivated by liberal values began to dominate the General Secretary’s entourage, Gorbachev’s own attitude towards the usual course of Soviet foreign policy changed.

In the changed conditions, the leader of the USSR formulated the principles of the USSR's foreign policy, becoming, in his opinion, a key figure in foreign policy who played a decisive role in ending the Cold War and the transition to partnerships between former enemies. This doctrine, in further development since 1987, began to be called the policy of “new thinking”. It assumed:

refuse to split the world into two hostile poles;
recognition of the unity and indivisibility of the world;
refusal to use force in resolving international problems;
raise universal human values above national, ideological and class ones.

These theses became the theoretical basis of the USSR's foreign policy during the years of perestroika, which in practice was expressed in Gorbachev's desire to win the favor of the West, regardless of the cost of unilateral concessions.

The path from equality to contractual dictate

Regular meetings between the leaders of the Soviet Union and America began in November 1985. Then the leaders of the main world powers established trusting relationships. Since 1987, the negotiation process has moved to the stage of signing fundamental agreements on the most pressing foreign policy areas.

Losing positions within the country, Gorbachev wanted to strengthen his position through “outstanding” achievements in foreign policy. But the “successes” came at the expense of hefty unilateral concessions. US representatives, noticing the cramped position of the leader of the USSR, did not hesitate to put forward new conditions each time, which Gorbachev was forced to accept.

The memorable meeting between Mikhail Gorbachev and the new US President George W. Bush in Malta at the end of 1989 is famous for the Soviet leader’s complete rejection of the “Brezhnev Doctrine.” The Americans did not fail to take advantage of the opportunity to completely collapse the socialist camp and expand pressure on the USSR. It got to the point that in the summer of 1991, the President of the United States presented “six conditions” to the President of the USSR for the continuation of further cooperation between the Soviet Union and the West, they included the following requirements:

introduce democracy;
create a market;
build a federation;
abandon previous policies in the Middle East;
give up interests on the African continent;
stop work on modernizing the Soviet military nuclear potential.

This time, some conditions moved into the plane of internal politics, which was direct interference in the internal affairs of the USSR. Even Gorbachev could not tolerate this, and his days in power were numbered.

Collapse of the post-war world system

Sensitive changes for the Soviet Union took place in 1989 on its western borders. When it became clear that the unity of the socialist camp would not be supported by the force of Soviet weapons, the powers that be in Eastern Europe did not resist the pressure of the opposition forces, which relied on the powerful all-round support of the West.

The collapse of the socialist system began with a series of “velvet revolutions” in 1989, which swept through the countries of Eastern Europe, as well as a bloody coup in Romania. In October 1990, Germany received the go-ahead from Gorbachev for unification. In February 1991, the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist, and in the spring the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance was officially dissolved and the socialist camp in Europe collapsed.

In the Third World countries, the USSR abandoned its previous policy of supporting loyal regimes. Withdrew troops from Afghanistan, refused to intervene in conflicts in the Middle East, Africa and Central America. And during the first US aggression in Iraq in the summer of 1990, they completely supported the Western coalition.

These significant steps and unilateral steps certainly eased the tense situation in the international arena; the USSR began diplomatic relations with once odious countries: Israel, South Africa, Taiwan, South Korea and others. However, almost all regions of traditional Soviet influence fell under the tutelage of “Western partners.”

Thus, the result of the current situation in the international arena was the total failure of the foreign policy plans of the “new thinking”. Without political guarantees and material compensation for the USSR, the system of international world order created by the post-war generation was destroyed. The Soviet Union voluntarily lost its status as a world power, and soon collapsed altogether.

Main events

1. During the years of perestroika, the foreign policy of the USSR changed radically, which resulted in the prevention of the threat of nuclear war, on the one hand, and the collapse of the socialist system, on the other. The new foreign policy of the USSR was proclaimed in 1985 and was called “new thinking”, the essence of which is that:

The USSR stopped looking at relations with the outside world through the prism of confrontation between the socialist and capitalist systems;
The USSR stopped imposing its development model on other countries;
The USSR began to strive to improve relations with the United States and the West;
For this, the USSR was ready to make concessions.

2. Along with M.S. Gorbachev personified “new thinking” and a new foreign policy and became Eduard Shevardnadze, the new Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR, who took this position in 1985 (before that he worked as first secretary for 13 years

Central Committee of the Communist Party of Georgia). If the former ministers - V.M. Molotov and A.A. Gromyko, who firmly defended the interests of the USSR, had the nickname “Mr. No” in the West, while E. Shevardnadze later received the nickname “Mr. Yes” for his regular concessions to the West.

3. In 1985, the Soviet-American dialogue was resumed:

meetings took place between M.S. Gorbachev and R. Reagan in Geneva in November 1985 and in Reykjavik in the fall of 1986;
December 8, 1987 in Washington between M.S. Gorbachev and R. Reagan signed an agreement on the elimination of medium-range nuclear missiles in Europe, which became the starting point for the disarmament process;
in 1988, R. Reagan made a return visit to the USSR, where he stated that he no longer considered the USSR to be an “evil empire”;
after this, meetings between the leaders of the USSR and the USA became regular;
Direct communication between citizens began - teleconferences, trips.

4. At the beginning of 1989, the USSR took a major foreign policy step - on February 15, 1989, Soviet troops were completely withdrawn from Afghanistan. The USSR stopped participating in wars on foreign territory and supporting socialist regimes.

5. In May 1989, 30 years after N.S.’s trip. Khrushchev, M.S. Gorbachev visited China. The normalization of Soviet-Chinese relations began. Gorbachev's trip contributed to the beginning of mass anti-communist youth protests in China, which were suppressed by the Chinese army on June 3, 1989 in Tananmen Square. This was the first case of mass popular anti-communist protests in socialist countries.

6. Similar processes spread to Europe in the fall, as a result of which the socialist regimes and the power of the Communist Party in the socialist countries fell one after another:

in August - October 1989, a crisis began in the GDR - a mass exodus of GDR citizens to the Federal Republic of Germany, as a result of which about 2 million people accumulated on the German-German border who wanted to leave, and whom the GDR authorities did not let out;

this gave rise to mass unrest in the GDR, youth protests, as a result of which the repressive regime of E. Honecker in the GDR fell;

in April 1990, in free elections, the communists of the GDR were defeated and opposition non-communist forces came to power, heading for unification with the Federal Republic of Germany;

even earlier, in the summer of 1989, in the elections in Poland, 99% of Poles voted against the communists - in Poland, an anti-communist government led by Tadeusz Mazowiecki peacefully came to rule the country, which began the de-Sovietization of Poland;

in 1989, after the death of János Kádár, who had led the country for 33 years since the suppression of the 1956 uprising, the Communist Party of Hungary (HSWP-VSL) itself dismantled socialism within 3 months and on October 23, 1989 proclaimed Hungary a bourgeois republic, which was enshrined constitutional;

On November 10, 1989, as a result of a conspiracy at the top, 78-year-old Todor Zhivkov, who had ruled the country for 35 years, was removed from power - reforms began in Bulgaria;

On November 24, 1989, unrest began in Czechoslovakia (“Prague Autumn”), as a result of which the pro-Soviet leadership led by G. Husak resigned in disgrace, and Vaclav Havel (elected President of Czechoslovakia) and Alexander Dubcek (elected Chairman of Parliament);

On December 22-26, 1989, as a result of a popular uprising provoked by the execution of workers in Timisoara, Nicolae Ceausescu, who led Romania for 24 years and stubbornly opposed reforms until the last day, was overthrown and shot.

7. The Soviet Union took a position of non-interference in the processes occurring in these countries. The socialist camp collapsed.

On October 3, 1990, with the consent of the USSR, Germany was united - the GDR joined the Federal Republic of Germany on the basis of Art. 23 of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany, provided for by the creators of the Federal Republic of Germany back in 1949, and ceased to exist. The USSR agreed to the membership of a united Germany in NATO and pledged to withdraw all troops from Germany within 4 years.

8. In 1991, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) and the Warsaw Pact Organization (WTO) were dissolved without any retaliatory steps from NATO.

In 1991, Yugoslavia collapsed.

In December 1991, after 69 years of existence, the Soviet Union itself collapsed into 15 states.

The new leadership of the country, headed by Gorbachev and Foreign Minister Shevardnadze, came to power and began to pursue an active international policy of bringing the country out of international isolation. At first, the main tasks remained the same: ensuring security and strengthening the socialist camp. However, after 2 years, significant adjustments took place in foreign policy. This was due to the Soviet Union taking a course on and attempting to spread it in the international arena.

Such a concept as “new ideological thinking” appeared. The direction was based on the rejection of the concept that the whole world is split into 2 political systems, and the recognition of it as one and indivisible. To implement it, the principle of socialist internationalism was rejected, and it was replaced by the concept of universal human values.

To implement the new policy it was necessary de-ideologization in relations between states. This term meant the elimination of ideological prejudices that divided peoples with the goal of jointly building a common European home. First of all, this concerned capitalist countries, with which it was necessary to establish normal cooperation, unblocking all existing conflicts.

In the period from 1985 to 1991, the new course was implemented. Its results for the USSR were both positive and failure on some points.

Pros and cons of USSR foreign policy in 1985 – 1991

Positive aspects of the new USSR policy

Steps to normalize international relations:

The introduction by the USSR of a moratorium on nuclear weapons testing. This was the reason for inviting representatives of the Soviet state to attend US nuclear tests

Since 1985, meetings have taken place between Gorbachev and the US President on the issue of disarmament. A period of diminishing arms race began. There was a question about eliminating some of the nuclear weapons in relation to short- and medium-range missiles. The end of the Cold War era has come.

The issue with Afghanistan was resolved. stopped providing military assistance to the country, and the Soviet Union withdrew its troops

Establishing Soviet-Chinese relations. This was facilitated by the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan. However, there was still one obstacle remaining - the problem of Cambodia. After negotiations between the USSR and Vietnam, Soviet troops were withdrawn from there as well. As a result, a Soviet-Chinese summit took place in 1981. Issues of border territories, as well as economic ones, were resolved at it.

The Soviet Union condemned Iraq's military actions in the Persian Gulf. This was a radical change in policy. The USSR opposed its former allies. As a result, in 1991, Gorbachev was invited to attend the meeting of G7 leaders.

At the Soviet-Japanese meeting, Gorbachev agreed on the correctness of raising the issue of disputed territories in relation to the Kuril Islands

Negative aspects of the new USSR policy

The implementation of a new international policy also had negative sides for the USSR:

The countries of the socialist camp did not support the new policy of the USSR, which was their stronghold. As a result, mutual settlements between countries began to be carried out according to market laws. This led to an anti-communist explosion in the countries of the socialist camp. A series of “Velvet Revolutions” swept through them. Communist leaders were eliminated, and the Romanian was even shot. They were replaced by democratic forces that set a course for the European vector of development and rapprochement with NATO. After the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Federal Republic of Germany merged with the GDR.

This period was characterized by great financial difficulties for the USSR. The Soviet Union turned to Western countries for help. However, no compensation was forthcoming from this side. Then the request was sent to the G7, which included the most developed countries in the world. At first there was no refusal. Humanitarian aid was transferred: medicines, goods, food. However, the promised monetary compensation was not received. The reason was explained by the unstable internal situation in the USSR. The G7 countries pursued a policy of disintegrating the USSR and maintaining the newly formed states. However, the loans were not refused. As a result, the international debt of the USSR in 1991 amounted to $113 billion.

The Soviet Union ceased to be considered a military superpower. Its power waned and the US came out on top in the poll. In this regard, the American President congratulated his people on the victorious end of the Cold War.

In 1985 – 1991 there were a number of positive and negative aspects.

Some disadvantages concerned only the Soviet state. For example, the collapse of the socialist system cannot be called a minus for the countries themselves.

Having taken the market path of development, they significantly expanded their economy. The merger of the Federal Republic of Germany with the GDR revived the old Germany and allowed its Eastern part to significantly improve its level.

Pros and cons of Gorbachev's rule, the choice of religion by the people is always determined by its rulers. the true religion is always the one professed by the sovereign; the true god is the god whom the sovereign commands to be worshiped; thus, the will of the clergy, which guides the sovereigns, always turns out to be the will of God himself. Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev was born in the village. Privolnoe (Stavropol Territory) March 2, 1931, father, Sergei Gorbachev, and mother, Maria Gopkalo, was Ukrainian, which is associated with the special tolerance of the future politician on the national issue. Mikhail, while still a teenager, worked on a collective farm and in the MTS, to his parents, since the family lived modestly. At the age of fifteen, Mikhail Sergeevich becomes a combine operator. pros and cons of Gorbachev's rule At the age of 19, Gorbachev joined the ranks of candidates for the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, having received patronage from teachers and the director of his school. in 1950, Mikhail Sergeevich entered the Moscow State University without any exams, and three years later he married Raisa Mikhailovna Titarenko, with whom he would live in a happy marriage until his death (in 1952, Mikhail Sergeevich joined the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. In 1968, in August, Gorbachev was elected first secretary of the CPSU of the Stavropol regional committee, holding this position until April 1970. Since 1970, Gorbachev was appointed a member of the Supreme Council. While in power, Mikhail Sergeevich carried out many different reforms, due to which the monopoly of the CPSU was disintegrated. Although Gorbachev’s actions were often criticized by politicians for the inconsistency of their actions, for an attempt to preserve socialism and the former centrally planned system, a company was created in 1862 (May 15), the issue of fighting against drivers, tutors, flower sellers, etc. was raised. On the other hand, Gorbachev is partly responsible for increasing life expectancy, working ability of the population and reducing crimes due to alcohol intoxication. In 1985, on May 17, the anti-alcohol campaign came into force. pros and cons of Gorbachev's rule because of this innovation, prices for alcohol increased by 45%, vineyards were cut down, and sugar in stores, used by craftsmen for moonshine, disappeared, which meant that this product could only be sold with coupons. as a consequence of Gorbachev’s reforms, in 1989 many goods disappeared from stores, hidden inflation occurred, and the introduction, as already mentioned, of cards for a certain group of goods. the hard life of most citizens to the decline in the birth rate, which was observed until 2001. Under Mikhail Sergeevich, troops were withdrawn from Afghanistan, which was positively received by many compatriots. But in 1986, the facts of the explosion at Chernobyl nuclear power plant 26 were partially hidden, such “mystery” left a negative imprint on the politician’s biography. At the end of 1991, Gorbachev resigned, voluntarily relinquishing his powers as head. however, after five years (1996), Mikhail Sergeevich became chairman of the board of the international green cross. in 2011, on his eightieth birthday, Mikhail Sergeevich received the award of St. Andrew the First-Called. Do not judge a person by what views he holds, but judge by what he has achieved with them.

Reply posted by: Guest

After the defeat of the troops in the Battle of Friedland in June 1807, Alexander I concluded peace with Napoleon, according to which he undertook to join the continental blockade. By agreement with Napoleon, Russia took Finland from Sweden and made a number of other acquisitions!

Reply posted by: Guest

Field of Mars - a square in the center of St. Petersburg, later Tsaritsyn Meadow. military parades took place there.

architects: I.A. Fomin, L.V. Rudnev

the memorial was created in 1917-1919

Reply posted by: Guest

Middle Ages - knights

In the Middle Ages, it was customary to admire and idealize beautiful women and the exploits of knights. In those days, poet-knights from the French city of Provence were popular. then poets were called troubadours. The main theme of the troubadours from Provence was love. they wrote about unrequited love, a knight’s loyalty to his own right up to death, or about the knight’s torment when the beauty left them. But in Germany, poets are usually called Minnesingers. translated from the language it means singer of love. Walter von der Vogelweide was the most famous Minnesinger.

but besides love, the theme of heroes and their exploits was popular. Poems on this topic were read during feasts in castles. It is worth noting that many works were based on real personalities who performed feats. True, over time, speakers increasingly added new details to the fact. it turned out that most of it was made up. but the main purpose of such poems was to glorify loyalty to the lord, courage, determination, nobility and readiness to give his life for the church. The real hits of the 12th and 13th centuries were the works “Song of the Nibelungs” and “Song of Roland”. a few words about the last story. Roland was the nephew of Charlemagne. He became famous for losing his own life in order to save the king. He accomplished his feat during the campaign against Spain. About the Nibelungs tells about Siegfried's faithful love for Princess Kriemhild. Siegfried was killed by a traitor from his own vassals. Kriemhild took revenge on the vassal for the murder.

Novels were also popular. The main difference from poetry and songs was that novels are mostly fictional. There are often cases when in a novel a knight fights with a sorcerer or a huge dragon and always defeats them. The knight was always rewarded for his exploits with beautiful love. Among the popular novels of that time, one should highlight the legends of King Arthur and the story of the lovers Tristan and Isolde with a tragic ending. The last novel is based on the knight's contradiction between duty and love, as well as oath and feelings for. Since the novels were popular, there were many storytellers. Chrétien de Troyes was still considered the most popular.

The end of the twentieth century, the century of the two most bloody wars in the history of mankind, the century of the establishment of a new world order in which we still exist today, cannot be imagined without mentioning such a significant and at the same time controversial figure in domestic and world politics as Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev.

His name is associated with the end of the global confrontation between two fundamentally different paths of development of our civilization. One could even say a confrontation between two systems that are different in their ideology and principles of life: communist and capitalist. The centers of this confrontation were two superpowers - the USA and the USSR, the latter was headed by Mikhail Sergeevich.

Brief biographical information

Here it is necessary to at least briefly describe his biography, but only in order to understand those steps and features in his policies that he pursued while in power. Gorbachev was born on March 2, 1931 in the village. Privolnoe, Stavropol Territory. He grew up in a family of working peasants, and from a young age he was busy in the fields, working with his father. In 1950, he graduated from school and entered the law department of Moscow State University. There he meets his future wife Raisa. Already in 1952 he joined the party.

After completing his studies, he was assigned to serve in the USSR Prosecutor's Office, but due to circumstances prevailing at that time related to the exposure of the cult of the leader of the peoples, he was recalled from the service entrusted to him. His political activity began with his return to Stavropol.

In 1966, after a long and persistent Komsomol activity, Mikhail Sergeevich was appointed first secretary of the local city committee. There his main flaw is revealed - selfless work, which prevented him from demanding the fulfillment of his decrees from his subordinates. There is an opinion that this deficiency led to the collapse of the country. By 1978, Gorbachev was appointed to the position of Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, which he held until his election as General Secretary on March 11, 1985.

The essence of Gorbachev's policy

The years of his reign radically changed both the situation in the Soviet Union itself and the situation in the world as a whole. We will begin, perhaps, with a description of the changes that have occurred in the world, since everything here is more or less clear and unambiguous, and only then will we move to the field of internal political and ideological changes and transformations in our country.

To this day, these transformations contain a huge number of issues that remain unassessed or have fundamentally opposite points of view in relation to society.

Advantages of the current policy

Pros of foreign policy

So, what can we tell about this about the restructuring in foreign policy that Gorbachev led? Not yet being the first person of the state, he made his first visit to Canada in May 1983. It was there that Mikhail Sergeevich gained his first fame in the West, where he was rated as a brave and energetic politician. Already while there, he became very interested in the Western economic model, their moral values, including democracy. That same year, after being appointed Secretary General, Gorbachev met with United States President Reagan.

The result of lengthy negotiations is the establishment of a course for improving relations between the two countries, the signing of a number of agreements (including START), which in the future will relieve the tension hanging over the world. They also agreed to reduce the number of chemical and nuclear weapons in the arsenal of the two states, up to their complete elimination. The West applauded and welcomed the new Soviet reformer.

Gorbachev's actions in eliminating the Iron Curtain brought him recognition throughout the world; in 1990, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his significant contribution to the development of friendly dialogue and cooperation between all countries of the world.

Pros of domestic policy

Well, now let’s move, as they say, to our own garden. Here everything was much more complicated and rougher than on the outer contour. Of course, the advantages of Gorbachev’s policy are obvious: society received freedom, moral and political emancipation, the foundations of a democratic structure of society (elections, multi-party system, etc.), freedom of religion.

The equivalence of rights of different forms of ownership was established, and the first signs of a market economy appeared. The arms race, which was causing enormous damage to the national economy, was finally stopped.

Disadvantages of the current policy

Disadvantages of foreign policy

Excessive naivety and unjustified trust in yesterday's opponents led to the fact that the so-called mutual concessions in fact turned out to be concessions only on our part, which greatly undermined national security and respect from many peoples of the world. We have lost almost all levers of geopolitical influence and withdrawn ourselves from the international political arena.

Disadvantages of domestic politics

There were more than enough disadvantages in his actions in domestic politics. Take for example the well-known anti-alcohol campaign, the so-called “Prohibition Law”; it went against the spirit of freedom, as it had signs of administrative coercion.

A kind of indecisiveness of Mikhail Sergeevich in decision-making slowed down the transformation of the economic model of the state. The settlement of policy contradictions and interethnic clashes, on the basis of which the state collapsed, was never realized.

Conclusion

The main criticism of Gorbachev, of course, is his accusation of unacceptable indecision, which as a result led to his forced resignation as head of state, the coming to power of an even more controversial figure in the person of Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin, as a result of the fatal agreement in Belovezhskaya Pushcha and the collapse of the great countries.

In short, a lot has been done during the short years of his reign: you can praise for something, scold for something, but not taking into account the fact that the world has completely changed and will never be the same again would be, at the very least, wrong. Thanks to such serious world transformations and changes at the global level, he remains one of the largest figures in world politics in the history of our time.