Tag Archives: Yeltsin

The anniversary of the Karelo-Finnish SSR, and an unexpected turn in the “Wild ’90s”

Posted on by
Reply
Reading time: 10 minutes

We shall start with the contents of the post from our Telegram channel “Beorn And The Shieldmaiden”, where we marked the creation of the Karelo-Finnish Soviet Socialist Republic, and proceed to the translation of an article from “Argumenty i fakty” from July 23, 2019, which takes a deeper historical dive into the topic, as well as uncovers an unexpected twist from the “Wild ’90s”. The article also adds more touches to the portrait of the late Genndy Burbulis.

On March 31, 1940, at the sixth session of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR in Moscow, the law on the transformation of the Karelian ASSR into the Union Karelo-Finnish SSR was adopted.

Most of the territories acquired by the USSR under the Moscow Peace Treaty, which ended the Soviet-Finnish “winter” War (1939 – 1940), were transferred to the KFSSR.

At that time, the Karelo-Finnish SSR became the 12th Union Republic of the USSR, in connection with which amendments were made to the Constitution of the USSR. Petrozavodsk remained the capital of the KFSSR.

♦️♦️♦️

In 1954 – 1955, relations between Finland, headed by President J. K. Paasikivi, and the USSR, headed by N. S. Hrushyov, began to improve. In early 1956, Paasikivi refused to run for a new term, and Urho Kekkonen was elected president in March.

On January 1, 1956, the USSR prematurely returned the territory of Porkkala to Finland, which it had received under the peace treaty, approved Finland’s neutrality and did not prevent its entry into the UN.

On July 16, 1956, the KFSSR was officially downgraded to the ASSR and returned to the RSFSR. At the same time, the word “Finnish” (Karelian ASSR) was removed from its name. The transformation of the KFSSR into the Karelian ASSR was supposed to show that the USSR had no aggressive goals regarding Finnish independence, and at the same time put an end to attempts by Finnish politicians to re-raise the issue of redefining the borders and annexing the western regions of Karelia (the Karelian question).

Source

♦️♦️♦️

In retrospect, if such a change had not happened in 1956, Vyborg and Petrozavodsk would now be outside of Russia, while Murmansk would be in the position of Kaliningrad.

The price list of Burbulis. Was Russia going to sell Karelia to Finland?

In the early 1990s, Russia could lose Karelia. There was no talk of secession of the Russian region on the initiative of local authorities: the federal government was thinking of selling Karelia to neighbouring Finland.

15 billion for the “problem territory”

“The idea of selling Karelia back to Finland was an emergency decision by Russia due to lack of money in 1991,” writes Finland’s largest newspaper Helsingin Sanomat, referring to the words of former Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Fedorov.

According to Fedorov, in the summer of 1991, in an atmosphere of the strictest secrecy, a working group was formed, which included Russian Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev, Fedorov himself, as well as Boris Yeltsin’s adviser Gennady Burbulis. The group was engaged in compiling a list of regions with a high risk of the growth of nationalist sentiments and the strengthening of extremist movements, advocating their own autonomy. Karelia was also included in the number of high-risk zones, referring primarily to the territories annexed following the Soviet-Finnish war of 1939-1940.

As Fedorov told Finnish journalists, Moscow was seriously considering selling the troubled territories for $15 billion, thereby replenishing the Russian treasury.
Continue reading →

“Political Chernobyl has blown up.” How Burbulis justified the collapse of the USSR

Posted on by
1
Reading time: 8 minutes

Despite the majority of the Soviet citizens speaking out in favour of the preservation of the Soviet Union, their will was completely disregarded. In this article, which was published by “Argumenty i Fakty” on June 20,2022, Gennady Burbulis is giving his justification for the process. We shall make a note of when he is referencing a Western-sponsored myth about the USSR as part of his justification. Make sure you have read first the article The referendum on the independence of Ukraine on December 1, 1991: how Kravchuk deceived Sevastopol and Crimea, which uncovers the motivations for Kravchuk’s actions, which may seem as coming out of the blue in Burbulis’ story.

“Political Chernobyl has blown up.” How Burbulis justified the collapse of the USSR
– by Vitaly Tseplyaev

President of the Russian Federation Boris Yeltsin and Secretary of State under the President of the Russian Federation Gennady Burbulis

Gennady Burbulis, one of the closest associates of the first President of the Russian Federation Boris Yeltsin, died on June 19 (2022) at the age of 77. In December 1991, he held the position of Secretary of State of Russia, which was specially created for him, and played a crucial role in signing the Belovezha Agreements, which ended the existence of the Soviet Union. In a recent interview with AiF, Burbulis explained why he considered the collapse of the USSR to be an “optimistic tragedy” and did not regret what he had done.

— In December 1991, the Soviet Union practically did not exist. Moreover, a new Union Treaty had been prepared, and its signing was scheduled for December 9th. We chose this date specifically in order to wait for the results of the presidential elections in Kazakhstan and the referendum in Ukraine, which took place on December 1.

On Gorbachev’s initiative, on September 5, Nursultan Nazarbayev proposed to the Congress of People’s Deputies of the USSR to dissolve itself and create transitional governing bodies of the Union. And such a decision was made. There was no mention of the USSR in the text of the Treaty on the creation of the Union of Sovereign States (note the “Union” in the formula here! See: On March 17th 1991, the referendum on the preservation of the USSR was held) as a confederate democratic voluntary association, which was finally agreed upon in Novo-Ogaryovo on November 28-29.

Even before August, Gorbachev defended the erroneous formula of the 9+1 treaty, where 9 are republics and 1 is the Kremlin, the Union center. But by December, everything had changed. By that time, not a single organ of the union government was functioning normally. The country was on the verge of the most dangerous anarchy, and Gorbachev himself knew this best of all. Therefore, our decision (to sign an agreement on the establishment of the CIS in Belovezhskaya Pushcha on December 8. — Ed.) was vital and necessary. We had no choice.

“We spent the whole day trying to convince Kravchuk”

Vitaly Tseplyaev, aif.ru: — Why didn’t you wait for December 9th? Did you want to disrupt the signing of a new union treaty?

Gennady Burbulis: — Leonid Kravchuk said from the very first minute of our meeting in Belovezhskaya Pushcha that the mandate of the Ukrainian people, which he received in the elections and in the referendum, forbids him to discuss any options for a new Union Treaty: Ukraine declared itself a sovereign independent state. Such a categorical position came as a surprise to us. For a whole day we tried to convince Kravchuk that the peoples of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus cannot just leave for nowhere. It was unthinkable at the time. And after difficult conversations, reflections, and the realisation that a unique empire filled with nuclear weapons was disintegrating, in my opinion, it was Kravchuk who proposed this compromise form: the Commonwealth of Independent States. Here one can glean more than just a good analogy with the British Commonwealth.
Continue reading →

The referendum on the independence of Ukraine on December 1, 1991: how Kravchuk deceived Sevastopol and Crimea

Posted on by
1
Reading time: 37 minutes

This in-depth research and chronology article by Lyubov Ulyanova was published in the Sevastopol publication “ForPost” on November 30, 2022.

Without understanding the events and manipulations happening in the Ukrainian SSR in 1991, it is impossible to understand the mechanics behind the collapse of the USSR.

On March 17, 1991 the majority of the Soviet citizens voted for the preservation of the Union. But this vote was disregarded. Moreover, Ukraine held a referendum on independence, first denouncing the Union treaty of 1922, while Crimea was falsely assured that Ukrainian SSR has no intention of leaving the Union. This largely made the referendum on the secession of Crimea from Ukraine inevitable at some point in time, and that finally happened on March 16, 2014, after USA, dissatisfied with their already significant control of Ukraine, decided to push the country even further away from Russia though a Nazi-powered coup d’etat.

The article, while being long, is very much worth every minute that you will spend reading it, as it clears up many questions. One can summarise the key takeaways:

  • The “granite” colour revolution of October 1990, when protesters were taken with busses from Western Ukraine to Kiev.
  • Ukraine denounced the 1922 treaty, which means that Ukraine reverts to it’s pre-USSR state of not existing at all.
  • Ukraine expected to keep the borders as they were within the Union (i.e., following the 1922 Treaty and its amendments)
  • Ukraine used the “right to self-determination” to hold a referendum on independence
  • Ukraine denied Crime to have the UN-enshrined right to self-determination to hold its own referendum on independence
  • Ukraine promised that it will not leave the Union
  • Ukraine left the Union
  • Ukraine regarded USSR as “former”, non-existent
  • Ukraine deferred Crimea to the head of the USSR (Gorbachev) to repeal the 1954 decree of transfer of Crimea, thus recognising USSR as existing.
  • The process was closely guided from Canada and the USA
  • Crimea could appeal to the leadership of the USSR to repeal the 1954 decree, with a logical legal implication that as Russia is the legal heir of the USSR, Russia can repeal that decree on behalf of the USSR.

Watch also the following video, where Kravchuk speaks about the break-up of the USSR:

The referendum on the independence of Ukraine on December 1, 1991: how Kravchuk deceived Sevastopol and Crimea

Ukraine ratified a completely different text of the Belovezha Agreements compared to Russia and Belarus, and this calls into question the legal force of the Agreement as a whole.

Kravchuk distracted and deceived Sevastopol and Crimea in 1991.
The caption reads: “One must decide today that what can be decided today”. Date: 26.10.1991

Lapshin M.I. (Stupinsky territorial electoral district, Moscow region)… I have a question about the denunciation of the 1922 Union Treaty… Just look at the map of the USSR in 1922, and we will see that the states that have denounced the treaty today were located within completely different borders. Does the denunciation mean a return to the old days, when Russia was without the Far Eastern Republic, Kazahstan and Central Asia were part of the RSFSR, the border of Belarus was just west of the Minsk region, and Ukraine, to put it mildly, could show for itself quite different territory from what it currently has (most likely, it was, first of all, a hint at Crimea and Sevastopol – author note). Are we not creating the basis for huge territorial claims against each other by denouncing the Union Treaty?”

USSR 1922

This question, asked on December 12, 1991 by one of the deputies of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR during the discussion in the Russian Supreme Council of the Agreement on the creation of the CIS, a few days after the “Belovezha”, was basically ignored by other participants in that discussion.

However, today, more than 30 years later, it cannot be said that this question was completely meaningless.
Continue reading →

On March 17th 1991, the referendum on the preservation of the USSR was held

Posted on by
1
Reading time: 5 minutes

On March 17th 1991, the referendum on the preservation of the USSR was held. we are commemorating the event with a series of posts at our Telegram channel “Beorn And The Shieldmaiden”, as well as publications here and at our Odysee and Rumble channels.

The question at the referendum was formulated as follows:

“Do you consider it necessary to preserve the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics, in which the rights and freedoms of people of any nationality will be fully guaranteed?”

113.5 million people voted in favour of preserving the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, that is, almost 78% of those who voted.

In accordance with Art. 29 of the USSR Law “On National Voting” of December 27th 1990 No. 1869-I, a decision made through a referendum of the USSR is final and can be cancelled or changed only through a new expression of the will of the peoples of the USSR.

“The fate of the peoples of the country is inseparable; only through joint efforts can they successfully resolve issues of economic, social and cultural development”, stated the official commentary of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR.

On November 6th 1991, Yeltsin banned the Communist Party throughout Soviet Russia.

On December 8th, the will of citizens to live in a single multinational state was cynically and brazenly trampled on, when in Belovezhskaya Pushcha Yeltsin, Kravchuk and Shushkevich, without any legal authority to do so, with the criminal inaction of Gorbachev, secretly signed an agreement from the people that “The USSR as a subject of international law and as a geopolitical reality ceases to exist”.

On December 25th Yeltsin officially dissolved the Soviet Union. Next day, USSR to longer existed.

Word to the Rector — on the disappearance of the CIS documents


Backup at Rumble.

Russia is the legal successor of the USSR on the territory of all the Union republics.
Continue reading →

One more redeeming factor for Yeltsin

Posted on by
Reply
Reading time: 3 minutes

From our “Beorn And The Shieldmaiden” Telegram post… We have previously written about Yeltsin Centre and its imminent opening in Moscow. While the centre itself raises many questions, there turns out to be one more redeeming factor in favour of Yeltsin, besides him proposing Putins candidacy to Clinton.

This redeeming factor might warrant a memorial plaque, but not a whole centre though. In any case, here is what Andrey Medvedev had to say on the matter of the history of 1990s:

♦️♦️♦️

I have been observing for several days the indignation of citizens about the opening of a branch of the Yeltsin Center in Moscow. It was opened with fanfare, the most fashionable location was chosen for it, while it remains unclear who i paying for the party.

However, with all my very difficult attitude towards Yeltsin and his era, and with all my complaints about Yeltsin, it is worth noting that if it were not for him, it is unclear what country we would be living in now.

The year is 1990. The Declaration of Sovereignty of the RSFSR is adopted. Why is it adopted? This is a response to Gorbachev’s decisions. Because Gorbachev is starting to promote a plan to raise the status of autonomous national republics within the RSFSR to the level of union republics. Actually, this is what Trotsky once dreamed of doing.

On April 10 and 26, 1990, the relevant laws of the USSR were adopted, and the union leadership, which had already essentially destroyed the Soviet Union, began implementing the plan. Raising the status of autonomous national republics to the status of union republics is a catastrophe and the end of historical Russia. This is the loss of 51 percent of the territory, and this means guaranteed civil wars in the coming years.

And here Yeltsin, his entourage and deputies adopt the Declaration on the Sovereignty of the RSFSR. How else can you block the decisions of the lunatics from the union leadership?

The most interesting thing is that everyone wants to save Russia from the disaster, both Communists and Democrats, Russians and representatives of other nationalities. And even Yeltsin’s opponents.

The Declaration of Sovereignty is adopted almost unanimously at the Congress of People’s Deputies of the RSFSR. 907 – for, 13 – against and 9 – abstained. On the map provided by the respected Alexander Dyukov, you can see what would have remained of Russia if Gorbachev had implemented his plan (pink areas).

That’s how it was. Yeltsin, of course, did a lot of strange and wrong things. That happened, he was shaming the country and himself. All kinds happened.

However, 1990 and the Declaration of Sovereignty, 1993 and the prevention of civil war in Russia (BATS note: this point is highly debatable as it was rather the defusing actions of Zyuganov and the Communist Party that prevented greater bloodshed during the Bloody October of ’93), and 1999 with the choice of Putin as his successor – these are three situations when Yeltsin saved the country. Despite the fact that, in general, I repeat, most of us have a difficult attitude towards Boris Nikolaevich. I also don’t like what the Yeltsin Center does in general. However, I dislike the map of Russia that could have been created if Gorbachev had realized his ideas even more.

Yeltsin Centre as a magnet for the liberal dregs of society, with Nina Hrusheva as an example

Posted on by
Reading time: 10 minutes

To get a feel of what legacy Yeltsin left behind, and what kind of people get attracted to it, we published several posts at out Telegram channel “Beorn And The Shieldmaiden”, using one specific case as an example, and commenting along the way.

The country must know its antiheroes

Yeltsin Centre in Yekaterinburg invited a patented russophobe Nina Hrusheva — the great-granddaughter of Nikita Hrushev. Yes, the very same who got the top position in the USSR in exchange for the unconstitutional transfer of Crimea to UkSSR, the same who black-paintes Stalin and his legacy, the same who initiated the future dismemberment of the USSR.

Nina Hrusheva, a citizen of the USA, was to present her book «Nikita Hrushev. A Leader Outside of the System.»

Getting ahead, it was announced that Hrusheva’s visit was cancelled «for technical reasons». And good riddance!

We shall talk about Yeltsin Centre in a different post. Now, let’s take a closer look at Nina Hrusheva… UralLIVE reports:

♦️♦️♦️

She wants to dismember Russia and judge Putin. Meet the new guest of the Yeltsin Center
Nikita Khrushchev’s great-granddaughter went crazy and betrayed her motherland

On November 26, a speech by Nina Hrushcheva, professor at the New School University in New York, was announced at the Yeltsin Center. She is the great-granddaughter of Nikita Khrushchev, through whose fault Crimea became part of the Ukrainian SSR.
Continue reading →

Shooting of the “White House” in October of ’93 in the recollections of the contemporaries

Posted on by
Reading time: 14 minutes

«It was democracy that was shot at in Russia»
— Ruslan Hasbulatov

On the 15th anniversary of the «Boody October» in 2008, newspaper «Komsomolskaya Pravda» published an article with several recollections and testimonials from the participants of those events.

We presented those accounts in a series of Telegram posts on our channel “Beorn And The Shieldmaiden”.

♦️♦️♦️

At that time, a civil war almost broke out in Moscow, caused by a political war between President Yeltsin and the Supreme Soviet. Its tragic high point was the shooting of the parliament building (the “White House”). Who gave the order and who shot at the “White House”? What is the role of the West in those events? And how did they turn out for the country in the end?

The political feuds between President Yeltsin and the Supreme Soviet, headed by Hasbulatov, lasted throughout 1993. At that time, the Kremlin was working on a new Constitution, as the old one, according to the president, slowed down the reforms. The new Constitution gave enormous powers to the president and nullified the rights of the Parliament.

Tired of butting heads with deputies, on September 21, 1993, Yeltsin signed Decree No. 1400 on the termination of the activities of the Supreme Council. The deputies refused to comply, declaring that Yeltsin had committed a “coup d’etat” and that his powers were being terminated and transferred to Vice President Rutskoy.

Riot police blocked the White House, where the parliament was sitting. Communications, electricity, and water were cut off there. Supporters of the Supreme Council built barricades, and on September 3 their clashes with riot police began, 7 demonstrators were killed, dozens were injured.

Yeltsin declared a state of emergency in Moscow. And Rutskoy called for the capture of the Ostankino television center in order to gain access to the airwaves. Dozens of people died during the capture of Ostankino. On the night of October 4, Yeltsin ordered the storming of the White House. In the morning, the building was shelled. A total of 150 people were killed and four hundred injured on October 3-4 [an optimistic number, the real death toll may well have been over 1400 people]. Hasbulatov and Rutskoy were arrested and sent to Lefortovo prison.

♦️♦️♦️

Let’s start with a short interview with the then Chairman of the Supreme Council, Ruslan Imranovich Hasbulatov. Read also The Bloody October of 1993. Retrospect. The Last Interview with Ruslan Hasbulatov

For context, the publication came 2 months after US-NATO poked Russia using Georgia as a stick, and discovered that Dmitry Medvedev, far from being an obedient liberal, responded with a short decisive policing action in Georgia, taking some NATO equipment as trophies.

♦️♦️♦️

Vice President Alexander Rutskoi and Chairman of the Supreme Council Ruslan Hasbulatov. Photo: T.Kuzmina (ITAR-TASS)

“Kohl persuaded Clinton to help Yeltsin destroy the parliament”

— Ruslan Imranovich, after 15 years, how do you see the history of October 1993?
Continue reading →

“The Yanks Gave the Order: Fire!” – Witness Testimony of Iona Andronov, a Defender of the “White house”

Posted on by
Reading time: 9 minutes

In my article from November 2015 The ”Wild ’90s” in Russia, as reflected in people’s memory I mentioned in passing a testimony from Deputy Iona Andronov, describing the American involvement in Yeltsin’s coup of 1993. In yesterday’s publication Newspaper “Pravda” commemorating the 30th anniversary of the “Black October” of 1993, the author of the final article made a reference to the same testimony by Andronov.

In fact, this testimony has such significance, that I think it must be translated in full as a separate article. The original document can be found here on the subdomain of the Narod.ru site, dedicated to the events of October of 1993.

Iona Andronov – a historian-orientalist, journalist, writer, the Deputy of the Supreme Soviet in 1993 – also has a homepage on Narod.ru and a blog on Cont. I want to draw attention to a large 110-page long exposing publication in Russian that he has posted on his homepage in memory of the 30th anniversary of Yeltsin’s coup: The Counter-revolution of 1993. Epilog. 30 Years Later. (A chapter from the “Parting Memoirs of a Soviet Journalist”) – also available as a PDF, which expands on the testimony you are about to read, and also adds the descriptions of the actions of the Westward-looking “liberals” and “dissidents” of that time.

The Yanks Gave the Order: Fire!

The 3rd of October 2003
– A version for the press

The plan to storm the Supreme Soviet was developed by Boris Yeltsin’s entourage under the directions of the CIA and the inner circle of US President Clinton. This was told to the correspondent of “EG” by Iona ANDRONOV, a former defender of the “White House”, a deputy of the dispersed Supreme Council, at that time, chairman of the Committee on International Affairs. He is the one who negotiated with the representatives of the American embassy on the night before the carnage, trying to prevent the massacre of the Parliament.

Continue reading →

Newspaper “Pravda” commemorating the 30th anniversary of the “Black October” of 1993

Posted on by
Reading time: 24 minutes

In this post I am continuing with the remembrance of the events of September — October 1993 resulting in Yeltsin’s unconstitutional power grab. After Yeltsin’s coup, the newspaper “Pravda” was forbidden, which was highly symbolic, as “Pravda” means “Truth” in Russian, and so after October of 1993 and for a long time The Truth was forbidden. The previous posts in the series are: Autumn of 1991 as a Prelude to the “Black October” of 1993 and the “Wild ’90s” in Russia and The Bloody October of 1993. Retrospect. The Last Interview with Ruslan Hasbulatov.

The newspaper published a series of Telegram posts and articles, commemorating that turn to the worse in Russian history. Below, I will translate three materials from Telegram, finishing with a longer article by Doctor of Political Sciences Sergej Obuhov, who asks several highly-relevant questions about those times and how the events echo in today’s Russia.

All the images can be clicked on for higher resolution.

Telegram post 1:

“The Black October”: 30 years

A barricade leaflet.

Today, after exactly 30 years, our editorial office publishes the historical Moscow edition of the newspaper “Pravda”, published on the 1st of October 1993 under the general headline “Politics is over. The dictatorship has begun”. It truly became a barricade leaflet, a “battle leaflet” that contained both a chronicle of what was happening, an analysis of the situation, and the thoughts and experiences of the participants in the events. Even now one can see in it the intensity of those events, the nerve of that time of troubles. For the edification of future generations.

In just two days there will be a bloody suppression of the popular uprising in the worst traditions of Pinochet, and “Pravda” became banned for a long time.

Here’s what the deputy editor-in-chief of Pravda, Viktor Linnik, wrote: “…It is absolutely not necessary to admire Hasbulatov and Rutskoy in order to be outraged by Yeltsin’s utterly cynical actions. Although it is precisely today that both Rutskoy, Hasbulatov, and every defender of the “White House” deserve the gratitude of the Russians for daring to throw the gauntlet in the face of tyranny.

Continue reading →

The Bloody October of 1993. Retrospect. The Last Interview with Ruslan Hasbulatov

Posted on by
Reading time: 9 minutes

Motherland Remembers Decree 1400, 21st of September 1993

On this day, exactly 30 years ago, Yeltsin, with the direct blessing from the USA, gave order for the tanks to open fire on the Parliament building in Moscow, that also was known as “The White House”. This ended the confrontation between the defenders of the Russian Constitution and Yeltsin, who was unconstitutionally concentrating more power in own hands, a confrontation that started with Order 66 Decree 1400 that unconstitutionally dispersed the Parliament (also known as the Supreme Council or Supreme Soviet), and the Parliament responding with a preparation for the impeachment of Yeltsin.

30 years is a long enough stretch to time to be able to look at the events of that Autumn with a critical eye, yet short enough for many of the contemporaries and direct participants of the evens to be around to remember what was happening on both sides of the barricades. In a few weeks I will finish translating a documentary that does just that. But first, a short look at the political spread in 1993 both internally and coming from the USA. And this publication will be concluded with a fragment of the last interview with one of the main participants of the stand-off, who defended the Parliament – Ruslan Hasbulatov, who passed away on the 3rd of January 2023.

In the previous post, Autumn of 1991 as a Prelude to the “Black October” of 1993 and the “Wild ’90s” in Russia, I described in short the turmoil of the Autumn of 1991. Back then Yeltsin played a major role in the breakup of the USSR, and it was he who, in a feat of projection, accused the SCSE – which tried to save the country – of being the coup-makers. At that time Yeltsin became an important asset in the US State Department’s arsenal, one that the USA would have been loath to lose. In 1993 Yeltsin had the complete backing of the USA, but his ability to give external control to Russia was severely limited by the Parliament. This lead to passing of the unconstitutional Decree 1400. At the same time the experience of 1991 was again used, with the Parliament being presented as coup makers, and not as defenders, in the public view. The liberal crowd began an assault on the Constitution, basically saying who needs a Constitution like this (meaning, where Yeltsin cannot do anything he wants).

Continue reading →

Autumn of 1991 as a Prelude to the “Black October” of 1993 and the “Wild ’90s” in Russia

Posted on by
Reading time: 5 minutes

This autumn marks a sombre anniversary – 30 years since the bloody events of autumn 1993, which cemented Russia’s fate for the next 7 years and set the stage for the “Wild ’90s” and the “Desolation of Yeltsin” that almost destroyed Russia. I had several posts on the pages of this blog about the “Wild ’90s”, which are easiest accessed through the corresponding tag. Some of these posts are:

This is the first in a series of three articles I have planned for this autumn to remember the events of 1993. In this material I want to start by looking at August of 1991 through a series of short video materials – a time when the USSR was still around, and when it all really began.

First, let’s watch one aspect of the president of the USA G.W.Bush visit to the USSR – his speech before the congress of deputies of the Ukrainian SSR. Pay attention to the wording that Bush used in his speech, what emotions it played on.


(Original publication on Putinger’s Cat Telegram channel)

Three weeks after Bush’s visit, the USSR was engulfed in a coup d’etat, the so-called SCSE – The State Committee on the State of Emergency, or GKChP as it is known in Russian. I remember it as a highly-chaotic time, trying to tune in on some radio stations in Moscow and the “enemy voices” – Voice of America and Radio Svoboda, trying to make sense of what is happening. The information was very conflicting, and it was presented as if SCSE grabbed the power in the USSR, trying to depose Gorbachev.

Continue reading →

The Clinton – Yeltsin Collusion — How USA Interfered in the Russian Affairs and Elections

Posted on by
Reading time: 3 minutes

The devastating period of the Wild ’90s during Yeltsin’s reign of chaos, is a topic which I have previously covered on multiple occasions, and which I will be coming back to in the future.

This time, I want to draw your attention to the newly-declassified documents, pertaining to the communications between Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin. These documents are especially telling in the current “Russian elections meddling” hysteria, which has engulfed the United States. In a flurry of accusations, backed by so far zero evidence, the US accuses Russia of swaying the public opinion in Trump’s favour by placing a few ads on Twitter. As the Russian saying goes, “a thief is always screaming ‘catch the thief’ loudest of all”. This perfectly illustrates the situation in the USA, in light of their continued and brazen track record of meddling in other states’ affairs, and in this case, specifically the Russian affairs during the Wild ’90s period.

The Clinton Digital Library declassified the Documents Concerning Russian President Boris Yeltsin.

RT made a short digest of 5 highlight points from this 591 page long publication:

‘Smart’ Putin & election loans: 5 must-read Clinton-Yeltsin exchanges released

The exchanges include:

  • Clinton sends ‘his people’ to get Yeltsin elected
  • Yeltsin questions NATO expansion
  • NATO bombing of Yugoslavia turns Russia against the West
  • Yeltsin asks US to ‘give Europe to Russia’
  • Clinton on Putin: ‘He’s very smart’

Continue reading →

The ”Wild ’90s” in Russia, as reflected in people’s memory. Part 2.

Posted on by
Reading time: 11 minutes

Two years ago I published an article The ”Wild ’90s” in Russia, as reflected in people’s memory, where I translated one testimonial of a survivor of the Yeltsin’s “Wild ’90s” in Russia. Such survivors are many, yet many more perished – in Russia more people died during Yeltsin than during WWII. In that article I also detailed Yeltsin’s coup d’etat of November 1993.

Now, a few days ago, the ignominious Navalny organised an “anti-corruption” rally in Moscow and several of Russia’s cities. I am not going to go into the details of how only 8000 people out of the 12 million population of Moscow was seen at this colour revolution attempt. I will not go into details of how Navalny turned to the political paedophilia, luring school-aged kids onto the streets with the promise of paying them €10000 if they manage to get arrested, and how the “political speeches” of said kids said that they want to buy sneakers. The use of kids seems to be in the instruction book of any colour revolt worth its name (see “protests” against Charles de Gaulle). I will not go into the details of how Navalny – a jobless man – manages to own expensive car, finance organisation of revolts and produce Hollywood-class films, and why this corruption fighter has several criminal corruption cases over him regarding illegal forest deals.

What I want to go into detail about, is the main chant of Navalny and co., of all the anti-Russian, Russophobic traitors organising such revolts: “Putin must go”. That’s all of their agenda. They say absolutely nothing about how Russia should be governed or about the future. At best they position themselves as the next presidents and say a few abstract words about how there’ll be no corruption and everyone will be equal. Aha! The same manifestos were proclaimed in 1917. And in 1991.

And this is what I am coming towards. All the Navalny-class “liberals” are aiming to bring Russia to the condition of the Yeltsin’s 1993-1999 era. The Desolation of Yeltsin as I like to call it, referring to the Desolation of Smaug.

By 1999 the “progress and democracy” in Russia reached such levels that the population was dying out from hunger, military and statehood all but destroyed. Foreign NATO-sponsored Islamic insurgency in Chechenia was at its peak. Here is a link to an article from Lenta.ru from 29.09.1999 with the telling title “Russia begs USA for a little more food”. Sad and detrimental, yet it fully reflects the reality of those days.

Continue reading →

Boris Yeltsin: Demon or Hero?

Posted on by
Reading time: 3 minutes

On the 1st of February Boris Yeltsin, the first President of the Russian Federation, would have been 85. Commemorating the date, Argumenty i Fakty published a two-polar article about Yeltsin. Two views on what he did to Russia, one negative and one positive. The whole article Boris Yeltsin: Demon or Hero can be read in Russian at the site of AiF.

Here I am only going to translate one view, which reflects the real negative impact of Yeltsin on Russia. I cannot bring myself to translating the positive view by Vladimir Ryzhkov, who was the vice-speaker of the Parliament in 1997-1999 – in the years after the 1993 Yeltsin’s coup d’etat. Ryzhkov’s words are sugar-coated paintings of black as white. IF anyone wants to read them, go to the Russian article above and use Google translate…

Continue reading →

The “Wild ’90s” in Russia, as reflected in people’s memory

Posted on by
Reading time: 5 minutes

I previously published a translation of an article For Russia 90’s Were Worse Than WWII, which tells the extent of the destruction caused to Russian industry and science in the course of the 90’s.

That was the time, when the West’s darling Yeltsin was in power, and when every parliamentary, every minister had an American “advisor” attached to him or her.

Let us remember that in October-November 1993, the Russian Parliament tried to pass an impeachment of Yeltsin, trying to save the country in a democratic way. The response back then, authorised by Clinton, was to bring tanks into the streets of Moscow, open fire at the Parliament building and kill almost 2000 people, who came to defend the young democracy from APC machine guns. That was effectively a coup d’etat, which kept Yeltsin in power and descended Russia into a dark stretch of destruction of the country and its people, which lasted until 2000, when Yeltsin released his American-backed grip, and Putin started slowly, but surely, save the county.

In this post I want to translate an echo from that time. There is a Russian site, which publishes jokes, real life stories (both fun and sad) and aphorisms, and people get to vote on them. One story collected a large number of votes, for it resonates strongly with the Russian population which survived through the war-like conditions of the 1993-1999.

Continue reading →