The New Russia E-Book

Mikhail Gorbachev

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 768

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2016

Beschreibung

After years of rapprochement, the relationship between Russia and the West is more strained now than it has been in the past 25 years. Putin’s motives, his reasons for seeking confrontation with the West, remain for many a mystery. Not for Mikhail Gorbachev. In this new work, Russia’s elder statesman draws on his wealth of knowledge and experience to reveal the development of Putin’s regime and the intentions behind it. He argues that Putin has significantly diminished the achievements of perestroika and is part of an over-centralized system that presents a precarious future for Russia. Faced with this, Gorbachev advocates a radical reform of politics and a new fostering of pluralism and social democracy.

Gorbachev’s insightful analysis moves beyond internal politics to address wider problems in the region, including the Ukraine conflict, as well as the global challenges of poverty and climate change. Above all else, he insists that solutions are to be found by returning to the atmosphere of dialogue and cooperation which was so instrumental in ending the Cold War. 

This book represents the summation of Gorbachev’s thinking on the course that Russia has taken since 1991 and stands as a testament to one of the greatest and most influential statesmen of the twentieth century.

Leseprobe

Contents

Cover

Title Page

Copyright

Preface: Perestroika and the Future

Trying to Bury Me

You have a great many supporters

Greetings for New Year, 1992

PLATE Section A

I After Perestroika

The 1990s: Defending Perestroika

My last day in the Kremlin

A new beginning, without presidential immunity

Shock Therapy

The search for a scapegoat, threats

The Gorbachev Foundation: its first reports

December 1991: politics and morality

Salvation in work

Attempts to ‘destabilize’ me

The ‘Trial of the CPSU’

First results of shock therapy

A year after the coup

My stance

The slide towards social catastrophe

On the brink of crisis

Fateful Decisions, Fateful Days

A state of emergency is not the way to stability

Defects of the new constitution

1994 Gets Off to a Bad Start

Economists advise, but the government is not listening Nikita Khrushchev: lessons in courage and lessons from mistakes

The Union could have been saved

The economy: what now?

Meetings in the regions

Chechnya: a war that could have been avoided

1995: 10 Years of Perestroika

The intelligentsia

Government and society

The Need for an Alternative

Breaking through the conspiracy of silence

Letters relating to the 1996 presidential election campaign Discrediting elections

The Final Years of the Millennium

The Gorbachev Foundation’s ‘First Five-Year Plan’ The elections fail to bring stability

The storm breaks in 1998

How to come out of the crisis?

Letters of support

Raisa Gorbacheva

PLATE Section B

II Whither Russia?

Putin: The Beginning

The new president: hopes, problems, fears

What is Glasnost?

The heavy burden of the presidency

My social democratic choice

Russia needs social democracy

Issues and more issues

The zero years of the 2000s?

The Yukos affair

A party of new bureaucrats

A second presidential term: what for?

A new direction, or more of the same?

Full of Contradictions: The First Decade of the New Millennium

New elections

Democracy in distress

Operation Successor

Ideas and people

Saakashvili’s adventure and the West: my reaction Ordeal by global crisis

Defending the credo of Perestroika

Disturbing trends

My 80th birthday

Russian politics in a quandary

A new Era of Stagnation?

The Presidential ‘Reshuffle’ and the Duma Elections

For fair elections!

Society awakens

A decision to tighten the screws

Some letters of support in recent years

The need for dialogue between the government and society

PLATE Section C

III Today’s Uneasy World

The Relevance of New Thinking

Challenges of globalization

The challenge of security

Ban the bomb!

Consequences of NATO expansion

The world after 9/11

Poverty is a political problem

Responding to the Environmental Challenge

The water crisis

The threat of climate change

We need a new model of development

Meetings in America

George Shultz and Ronald Reagan

Partners should be equal

The role of the United States in the world

‘America needs its own Perestroika’

The election of Obama

The Future of Europe

Germany

On a solid foundation

Major figures in European politics

Looking East

China

Russia and Japan

Simmering Regions

Egypt and Syria

Russia and Ukraine

History is not fated

Conclusion

Reflections of an Optimist

Index

End User License Agreement

Guide

Cover

Table of Contents

Begin Reading

Pages

iii

iv

ix

x

xi

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

131

132

133

134

135

136

137

139

141

142

143

144

145

146

147

148

149

150

151

152

153

154

155

156

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

209

210

211

212

213

214

215

216

217

218

219

220

221

222

223

224

225

226

227

228

229

230

231

232

233

234

235

236

237

238

239

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

248

249

250

251

252

253

254

255

256

257

258

259

260

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

291

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

330

331

332

333

334

335

336

337

338

339

340

341

342

343

344

345

346

347

348

349

350

351

352

353

354

355

356

357

358

359

360

361

362

363

364

365

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

386

387

388

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

396

397

398

399

400

401

402

403

404

405

406

407

408

409

410

411

412

413

414

415

416

417

418

419

420

421

422

423

424

425

426

427

428

429

430

431

432

433

434

435

436

437

438

439

440

441

442

443

444

445

446

447

448

449

450

451

452

453

454

455

456

457

458

459

460

461

462

463

464

The New Russia

Mikhail Gorbachev

Translated by Arch Tait

polity

First published in Russian as После Кремля/Posle Kremlya, © Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev, 2015 This English edition © Polity Press, 2016

All images © The Gorbachev Foundation, 2016

Polity Press65 Bridge StreetCambridge CB2 1UR, UK

Polity Press350 Main StreetMalden, MA 02148, USA

All rights reserved. Except for the quotation of short passages for the purpose of criticism and review, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.

ISBN-13: 978-1-5095-0391-9

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Gorbachev, Mikhail Sergeevich, 1931- author.Title: The new Russia / Mikhail Gorbachev.Other titles: Posle Kremlya. EnglishDescription: English edition. | Cambridge, UK : Polity, 2016. | First published in Russian as Posle Kremlya, Moskva : Ves Mir, 2014. | Includes index.Identifiers: LCCN 2015042490 (print) | LCCN 2015049601 (ebook) | ISBN 9781509503872(hardback) | ISBN 9781509503902 (Mobi) | ISBN 9781509503919 (Epub)Subjects: LCSH: Gorbachev, Mikhail Sergeevich, 1931- | Gorbachev, Mikhail Sergeevich, 1931---Political and social views. | Presidents--Soviet Union--Biography. | Ex-presidents--Soviet Union--Biography. | Kommunisticheska, a parti, a Sovetskogo So, uza--Biography. | Perestroika--History. | Soviet Union--Politics and government--1985-1991. | Russia (Federation)--Politics and government--1991- | Social change--Russia (Federation)--History. | Political culture--Russia (Federation)--History. | BISAC: POLITICAL SCIENCE / International Relations / General.Classification: LCC DK290.3.G67 G67213 2016 (print) | LCC DK290.3.G67 (ebook) | DDC 947.085/4092--dc23LC record available at http://lccn.loc.gov/2015042490

The publisher has used its best endeavours to ensure that the URLs for external websites referred to in this book are correct and active at the time of going to press. However, the publisher has no responsibility for the websites and can make no guarantee that a site will remain live or that the content is or will remain appropriate.

Every effort has been made to trace all copyright holders, but if any have been inadvertently overlooked the publisher will be pleased to include any necessary credits in any subsequent reprint or edition.

For further information on Polity, visit our website: politybooks.com

Preface: Perestroika and the Future

This is a book about the relevance of the past. Reflecting on what happened to Russia and Russians at the end of the last and beginning of this century, and what awaits Russia in the future, you inevitably come back to the years of Perestroika. Today, more than two decades separate us from that time, but it is probably still too early to attempt any final assessment. Chou En-Lai is said to have replied to President Richard Nixon’s question of how he assessed the French Revolution: ‘It is too soon to judge.’ He may have been right, yet much can already be seen more clearly.

Today there is again a great sense in Russia of a need for change. Society cannot feel satisfied with the current situation. The attempts at reform undertaken in the past two decades have not been seen through to the end. Of course, we cannot say there have been no changes in people’s lives, but many of their hopes have been disappointed and there has been no genuine renewal of life in the interests of the majority of our citizens.

A dead-end political situation, economic stagnation, a build-up of unresolved social problems, violation of the rights and dignity of citizens: all this is only too reminiscent of the state of the country before Perestroika, and people are not happy. Although it has proved possible to temporarily stifle the protest movement that began in December 2011, it is impossible to suppose that those presently in power are unaware of citizens’ discontent.

It is no longer possible to say, as we have been doing for very many years, that Russia needs time, that changes of this magnitude cannot be rushed. That is perfectly true, and I have often used that argument in my speeches and in conversations with foreign politicians. Now, however, the process of transition has been going on for two and a half decades, and with every year that passes the argument becomes less convincing.

How should we respond to this state of affairs? What should we do? I am concerned that many are looking for the answer in the wrong direction. They believe it can be found by abandoning the democratic achievements of the Perestroika period. There are attempts to rehabilitate authoritarianism and return to its techniques of administrative pressure and tightening the screws. They extol conservatism and try to turn it into a state ideology, claiming that is more in tune with our traditions and Russia’s ‘cultural code’.

In President Putin’s speeches we hear him quoting conservative Russian philosophers like Ivan Ilyin and Konstantin Leontiev. They cannot be detached from the times in which they lived and contemplated, and we are living in the twenty-first century, a century of new technologies and new challenges. Conservative ideology has no answer to these. Traditional, conservative values do, along with others, have their place in society. But where have conservative policies taken us in the history of Russia? They have led, as a rule, to stagnation followed by upheaval. Sometimes the years of stagnation have been relatively prosperous, living off reforms carried through earlier and favourable external factors. Sooner or later, however, that energy runs out, the external factors change.

The present Russian regime need have no delusions that conservatism is a panacea for our problems, lulling themselves with the belief that for the sake of peace and quiet people will agree to put up with stagnation. They are wrong. I am increasingly convinced that all they are doing is playing for time, clinging to power for its own sake, clutching at the benefits that a minority is able to extract from the current state of affairs.

But people are not blind and their patience is not limitless. They have demonstrated in protest on Bolotnaya Square and Sakharov Prospekt, demanding change. If there is none, the protests will not just be repeated but will become more radical. This would be dangerous and must be avoided. Russia really does not need more turmoil; she needs change, change that opens the way to a genuine renewal of society and improvement in people’s lives.

The road will not be straightforward, but in the Perestroika years we did what was most difficult by breaking free of the totalitarian past. At that time and later, we were to live through many moments of high drama, but I am certain that was not in vain.

My message to Russia and the world is a message of hope.

1 After the Kremlin, 1992. Photo: Herb Ritts.

2 Broadcast by the president of the USSR, M.S. Gorbachev, 25 December 1991. Photo: Yury Lizunov.

3 Launch of the Gorbachev Foundation, 3 March 1992. A.S. Chernyaev, Irina Gorbacheva-Virganskaya, Alexander Rutskoy, Raisa Gorbacheva, Mikhail Gorbachev, Nikita Mikhalkov. Photo: Yury Lizunov.

4 The White House, Moscow, October 1993.

5 Launch of The Union Could Have Been Saved, Novgorod, 1994.

6 Meeting the voters in Volgograd, 9 May 1996. Photo: A. Stepin.

7 Discussion with Academicians Alexey Sisakyan and Vladimir Kadyshevsky, Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna, 30 January 1996. Photo: Yu Tumanov.

8 Meeting the voters in Samara, 25 May 1996.

9 Laying of wreaths at Mamai Kurgan, Volgograd, 9 May 1996. Photo: A. Stepin.

10 With Leonid Abalkin and Vadim Medvedev at the Gorbachev Foundation, 2 March 1999.

11 Meeting with Yevgeny Yevtushenko and Katrina vanden Heuvel, Editor of The Nation magazine (USA), Moscow, July 1992.

12 Opening of the new building of the Gorbachev Foundation, Moscow, 12 May 2000.

13 In Mikhail Gorbachev’s home village of Privolnoye, August 2005.

14 ‘Russia and the Modern World’. Answering students’ questions after the lecture at Moscow State University, 24 March 2010. Photo: Dmitry Belanovsky.

15 Mikhail and Raisa Gorbachev at the Gorbachev Foundation, 1998. Photo: Heidi Hollinger.

Trying To Bury Me

On 8 August 2013 the newswires of many agencies and media reported: ‘Mikhail Gorbachev, the first and last Soviet president, has died, according to a message on the Twitter account of RIA Novosti. He was 82 years old. There is as yet no official confirmation of this information.’

The phone rang. It was Andrey Karplyuk. He reports now for the ITAR-TASS news agency but used to work for Interfax, and we have kept in touch for several years now.

‘Mikhail Sergeyevich, I phone you quite often, but this call is not altogether routine.’ I sensed he was smiling. ‘What I mean is, the reason is a bit unusual.’

‘Go on,’ I said.

‘Well, RIA Novosti is reporting that Gorbachev died during a visit to St Petersburg and I didn’t believe it.’

‘Neither do I’, I said, and we burst out laughing.

The ‘news’ was taken off the wire within nine minutes, and the following day I had a letter from the agency staff:

Dear Mikhail Sergeyevich,

We are desperately sorry that hackers have exploited your name in their latest publicity-seeking attempt to discredit the media. Please accept our profound apologies for the shameful sensation caused by the hacking of our agency’s accounts on social networks and the posting of hoax information about you.

We do not regard this as a straightforward practical joke or mere act of hooliganism but believe it is a crime that must be investigated. RIA Novosti is sending a statement to the law-enforcement agencies about this hacking of our Twitter channels and we will do everything in our power to ensure that the incident and all the previous hoax reports are thoroughly investigated.

This is not the first time mainstream media have been abused to spread false information, but the latest incident is just too serious, cynical and immoral to be ignored.

Mikhail Sergeyevich, you know how profoundly we respect you and we are deeply distressed that this attack on Novosti has involved you. No doubt attempts to falsify the news and hoax attempts will continue, but we wish to assure you and all our readers that we will do everything we can to quash them promptly.

My relationship with RIA Novosti goes back a long time, and in spring 2013 I gave a talk in their offices to a large number of young people, with the title, ‘Does the individual change politics, or does politics change the individual?’ I talked about my life, current concerns, and all the obstacles on the road to democracy that Russia has yet to travel. My audience listened attentively and asked plenty of questions. Meeting the young people left me with a good feeling. It always does. A day to remember.

And then this hoax. What was behind it? This was not the first time: Gorbachev has been ‘buried’ many times, and I know why.

Someone out there has a grudge against Perestroika, and lies are their weapon of choice. Libel, inexcusable fabrications and distortion of the facts. That is how it was all those years ago, and the same weapon is still being used today.

There is no shortage of examples. In December 1990, at the Congress of People’s Deputies, Anatoly Lukianov, the speaker of the USSR Supreme Soviet, for some reason almost immediately gave the floor to a certain Sazha Umalatova, who called for a vote of no confidence in President Gorbachev to be put on the agenda. The delegates declined the invitation. In 1991, at the April plenum of the Communist Party’s Central Committee, I was subjected to such venomous ‘psychological warfare’ that I said, ‘I give up! How can anyone be the general secretary of two, three or even five Communist Parties at the same time?’ The Politburo persuaded me to stay on.

Next, under the pretext of a meeting of representatives of Hero Cities of World War II, a whole gaggle of Party bosses of different levels decided to discuss the ‘unresolved problem’ of how to topple Gorbachev. In the summer of 1991, as I was meeting with leaders of the Soviet republics to finalize a draft new Union Treaty, three hardline ministers in charge of security and law-enforcement put a proposal to the USSR Supreme Soviet to reassign powers from the president to the prime minister and security ministries. Never a day passed without the warbling of ‘anti-Perestroika nightingales’ like Alexander Prokhanov.

To this day, insane rumours are spread, hoaxes manufactured for release onto the Internet, and ‘documentaries’ shown on TV which are a pack of lies and malign invention from start to finish.

From the Gorbachev Foundation website:

In late August 2008 an interview appeared in Komsomolskaya Pravda [Young Communist League Pravda] in which Pavel Borodin, who holds high office in the Union State of Russia and Belarus, made blatantly libellous allegations against M. S. Gorbachev and Helmut Kohl, former Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany.

After contacting Helmut Kohl, M. S. Gorbachev has received confirmation from him that Borodin’s allegations were ‘a complete fabrication’. The Gorbachev Foundation contacted its lawyers, who took necessary action, and Komsomolskaya Pravda has published the following:

Retraction

In Issue No. 127 (24154) of Komsomolskaya Pravda, dated 29 August 2008, and on the Internet at URL http://www.kp.ru/daily/24154/369892, an interview with P. P. Borodin, Secretary of State of the Union State of Russia and Belarus, was published under the title ‘Pavel Borodin: “If South Ossetia and Abkhazia join the Union of Russia and Belarus, I too will down three litres of wine.”’ P. P. Borodin alleged that the former Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany, Helmut Kohl, had told him that ‘for Eastern Europe’ Mikhail Gorbachev asked for $100 million ‘for his own foundation, 100 million for Shevardnadze’s fund, and 100 million for the fund of another comrade’.

This information, as well as the claim that it was communicated to P. P. Borodin by Helmut Kohl, is at variance with the truth. Its intention was to impugn the integrity and reputation of M. S. Gorbachev.

Komsomolskaya Pravda, 28 January 2009

The authorities of the Russian state find me a hindrance. Today’s political elite have set their sights on consolidating their right to govern in perpetuity, giving them material wealth and power without accountability. The media subservient to them defame Perestroika, vilifying those who undertook the huge and perilous task of bringing reform and elections to a country weighed down by problems that had not been addressed for decades.

Freedom of speech can be, and is, used not only by people who seek and want to report the truth, but by others who are ill-intentioned and whose consciences are unclean.

To this day I am stunned by the treachery of people I placed in positions of trust, with whom I was bound by years of joint endeavour. The most striking instance of that was the coup by the ‘State Emergency Committee’ that paved the way for the destruction of the Soviet Union.

By August 1991, after months of severe crises in the USSR, a plan had been devised and agreed by all parties, including the Baltic republics. We had completed work on a new Union Treaty, which was to be signed by the leaders of the republics on 20 August. In the autumn, an extraordinary congress was to move the Communist Party in the direction of reform and social democracy. We anticipated difficulties in the future, but I have no doubt that, but for the coup, the subsequent orgy of destruction could have been avoided.

Democracy is a hard taskmaster, and the free elections to the Congress of People’s Deputies in 1989 produced unexpected results. On the one hand, 84 per cent of those elected were members of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), but, on the other, the voters withheld their trust from dozens of Party officials, who found themselves out on their ear. The reactionaries in the Party establishment initiated a campaign of furious resistance to Perestroika. Unable to achieve their goals in an open political fight, my opponents resorted to a coup d’état.

Their putsch failed, but gave the green light to separatists, radicals and extremists, with a string of disastrous consequences. The collapse of the Soviet Union; the rolling back of democracy in almost all the republics; chaos in the economy, exploited by the greediest and most unscrupulous, who succeeded in plunging almost everyone else into poverty; ethnic conflicts and bloodshed in Russia and other republics; and, finally, the shelling of the Supreme Soviet of Russia in October 1993.

People often ask me if I feel all this was my fault. They say that in late 1991, after the Belovezha collusion between Yeltsin and the leaders of Belarus and Ukraine to undermine the USSR and replace it with a ‘Commonwealth of Independent States’, I should have acted more decisively. My answer is that I fought for a Union State until the last, but it would have been unforgivable to allow a slide into civil conflict, and possibly civil war. We can imagine what that could have meant in a country bristling with weapons, not only conventional but also nuclear. That is why, after long deliberation, I took the decision that I still believe today was the only right one in the circumstances: I announced that I would cease to perform the duties of president of the USSR.

To the Citizens of the Soviet Union

A Broadcast by the President of the USSR, M. S. Gorbachev

25 December 1991

Dear fellow countrymen and fellow citizens,

In view of the situation that has developed with the formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States, I am terminating my work as president of the USSR. I am taking this decision for reasons of principle.

I have strongly supported the autonomy and independence of our peoples and the sovereignty of their republics, but also retention of the Union State and integrity of our country. Events have taken a different course. A policy of dismembering the country and disuniting the state has prevailed, which I cannot accept.

After the Alma-Ata meeting and the decisions taken there, my principles remain unaltered.

I am convinced that a decision of this magnitude should have been based on an expression of the will of the Soviet people. Nevertheless, I will do everything in my power to ensure that the agreements signed there bring about genuine harmony in society and facilitate the finding of a way out of the crisis and continuation of the reform process.

Addressing you now for the last time as president of the USSR, I consider it incumbent upon me to give an assessment of the path we have taken since 1985. This is all the more necessary in view of the many contradictory, superficial and biased judgements that have been heard.

Fate decreed that by the time I found myself in charge of the state it was already clear that something was wrong with our country. In terms of land, oil, gas and other natural resources, we had so much wealth, and no cause to complain as far as intelligence and talent were concerned, and yet our standard of living was far below that of developed countries and we were in the process of falling further behind.

The cause was already clear: society was suffocating in the clutches of a bureaucratic command system. Doomed to serve ideology while bearing the terrible burden of the arms race, it was close to breaking point.

All attempts at piecemeal reform, of which there were many, failed one after the other. The country was heading nowhere. It was impossible to go on like that. Everything was in need of radical change.

That is why I have never regretted that I did not take advantage of the position of general secretary of the CPSU merely to preside for a few years. I would have considered that irresponsible and immoral.

I understood that beginning reform on such a scale and in a society like ours was a difficult, and even dangerous, undertaking, but to this day remain convinced that to institute the democratic reforms that began in spring 1985 was historically the right thing to do.

The process of renewing the USSR and fundamental changes in the international community proved far more complex than could have been foreseen, but what was done should be judged fairly.

Society has gained its freedom and been emancipated politically and spiritually. That has been the greatest achievement, and it is one we do not yet fully appreciate because we have yet to learn how to use our freedom. For all that, what has been achieved is of historic significance.

The totalitarian system that for many years had been preventing our country from prospering and thriving has been eliminated.

We have made a breakthrough on the road to democratic reform. Free elections, freedom of the press, religious freedoms, representative institutions of government and a multi-party system have become a reality. Human rights have been recognized as wholly fundamental.

We are moving towards a mixed economy, with acceptance that all forms of ownership are equally valid. As a result of land reform, the peasantry is beginning to revive, farming has appeared, millions of acres of land are being given to country-dwellers and townspeople. The economic freedom of manufacturers has been recognized in law and we are seeing the growth of private enterprise, corporatization and privatization.

In introducing a market economy, it is important to remember that this is being done for the benefit of our people. At this difficult time, everything must be done to provide a social welfare safety net, particularly for children and the elderly.

We are living in a new world.

The Cold War has been ended. The arms race has been halted and with it the lunatic militarization of the USSR which distorted our economy, national consciousness and morality.The threat of world war is over.I want to emphasize once again that during the transitional period I have done everything I could to ensure that nuclear weapons remained securely under control.

We have opened up to the world, repudiated interference in other countries’ affairs and the use of troops outside our own territory, and in return we have been rewarded with trust, solidarity and respect.

We have become one of the main bulwarks for rebuilding contemporary civilization on peaceful, democratic principles.

Our peoples and nations have gained real freedom to choose their own form of government through self-determination. The search for democratic reform of our multinational state brought us to the threshold of concluding a new Union Treaty.

All these changes have called for great concentration of effort and have been pushed through in the face of fierce opposition and increasing resistance by forces clinging to all that is old, obsolete and reactionary, both in the former institutions of the Party and state, the economic bureaucracy, and indeed in our own habits, ideological prejudices and traditions of psychological dependency and levelling down. They have clashed with our intolerance, our low level of political culture and fear of change and that is why so much time has been lost. The old system collapsed before the new system could start functioning and that made the crisis in our society even more acute.

I know how much discontent there is over our current difficulties, how critical people are of the authorities at all levels and of my own record, but let me stress once again that fundamental change in such a vast country and with such a legacy is inevitably going to be difficult, disruptive and painful.

The coup attempt in August this year pushed the overall state of crisis to extremes. The most disastrous aspect of that is the collapse of our state institutions. I am deeply concerned that today our people are being deprived of their status as citizens of a great country. The consequences may be very severe for all of us.

I believe it is vitally important to hold on to the democratic achievements of recent years. We have paid a heavy price for them through our history and tragic experiences as a nation. Under no circumstances, under no pretext, must we allow them to be abandoned, since otherwise all hope of anything better will be lost.

I am telling you all this directly and truthfully, as is my moral duty. Today I want also to express my gratitude to all those citizens who have supported the policy of renewal and participated in implementing democratic reforms.

I am grateful to those servants of the state, politicians and public figures, to the millions of people abroad, who have understood our intentions, supported them, and joined with us in sincere cooperation.

I am standing down from my position with concern but also with hope, with faith in you, your wisdom and steadfastness. We are the heirs of a great civilization and today it depends on each of us individually and all of us together whether it will be reborn to a new, modern and worthy way of life.

My heartfelt thanks go to all those who have stood beside me in these years for what is right and good. No doubt there were errors we could have avoided and much we could have done better, but I have no doubt that sooner or later our joint efforts will bear fruit and our peoples will live in a flourishing and democratic society.

I wish you all the very best.

The Belovezha plot is a history of deceit and, moreover, of selfdeception on the part of those who connived at it, especially on the Russian side. They hoped that the ‘Commonwealth of Independent States’ they had invented would be a Union without Gorbachev, but that was not what happened. The provisions included for appearances’ sake in the Belovezha document about coordinating foreign and defence policy were promptly forgotten. I appealed again and again to the sense of responsibility of our parliamentary deputies to serve those who elect them, to be answerable to them and not subservient to political opportunists. At that time it was they, the Supreme Soviets of Russia, Ukraine and Byelorussia, who almost unanimously, including the communists who today lament the disintegration of the USSR, ratified the Belovezha Accord and deceived the people. Why do we overlook that?

The very thing I was doing my utmost to prevent duly happened. The unity of our state was destroyed. In those final days of my presidency, I saw my role as being to try to ensure this did not lead to a further splintering of society, rupturing of economic and human ties, and acceleration of the trend towards disintegration. I used my international contacts to appeal to Western leaders to help Russia, phoning George Bush Senior, François Mitterrand, John Major and Helmut Kohl. I urged them to forget the standard ways of doing things and support the Commonwealth, especially Russia. It was crucial that they assisted our efforts to reform.

I forget when it was that I read an article in Komsomolskaya Pravda giving statistics about the ascent of Everest. The numbers were startling: of 1,500 people who have successfully climbed the mountain, some 200 have died. Most of them perish shortly after making it to the top, on the first section after their successful ascent. Those who reach the summit are not always able to find their way back down.

A new phase was beginning in the life of our country, and in mine too. I had no illusions and knew it was going to be grim. A deluge of lies and libels rained down on me. As the economy’s problems worsened, it was wholly predictable that the politicians now in power would be looking for a scapegoat. Gorbachev was the obvious candidate.

What kept me afloat during those first months after the Kremlin? Why did I not buckle under the strain? I was firmly committed to my principles, I was tough, and in the course of my life I had learned to fight. In addition, I had the support of those close to me, Raisa and the rest of my family. I had the support too of friends and allies from the Perestroika project, and of others who became friends in later years, who helped in my work and new projects for love, not money.

Above all, what kept me going was the certainty that Perestroika had been and remained historically essential and that, having taken on a far from light burden, we were bearing it with the dignity it deserved. For all the mistakes and failures, we had led our country out of a historical impasse, given it a first taste of freedom, liberated our people and given them back the right to think for themselves. And we had ended the Cold War and nuclear arms race.

It was important to me at that time, and still is today, that many of my compatriots recognized that; and so I would like to publish just a few of the letters I received from people I never knew, but to whom I am immensely grateful.

You have a great many supporters

Responses to the resignation broadcast of the president of the USSR, 1991

Thank you for telling us the truth, and for your courage.

Captain Filimonov

on behalf of the White Sea fishermen, Belomorsk

This New Year will be very sad for us. We have always been on your side, admired you, sent telegrams of support and given what help we could. May all the other presidents find work worthy of you. We wish you and your family good health and happiness.

A. P. Valikova

Artist, Moscow

We have learned with regret but understanding of your resignation. The seed of democracy, freedom and Glasnost sown five years ago has already sprouted, and we are confident that, as the years pass, it will mature and yield good fruit. We hope you have a good holiday, recharge your batteries, and continue the work you have begun.

V. S. Goncharov

The Farm, Kantemirovka, Voronezh Province

We are grateful to you for the freedom with which you think, reflect and speak. Everything else will follow.

Staff of the Far East Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences

G. Glukhomanyuk and P. Logvenchev, Vladivostok

Forgive us if you can. I wish you health, spiritual strength and happiness. God Bless you!

Koshulko

Adamovka, Orenburg Province

Dear Mikhail Sergeyevich,

At what must be a difficult time, I want to express my gratitude to you. Please believe that not everybody sees what you have done only in terms of the difficulties that followed. It has been hard but it will pass. ‘Bad times pass, good people remain’, our pastor said in one of his sermons. Your resignation is a courageous and highly moral act. Personally, I am saddened by it, but hope our difficulties can be overcome and that time will put things right again.

You are a true leader. You have a great many supporters.

I wish you new strength, new success in your work, and new accomplishments

Yelena Georgievna Shadurskaya

Minsk, 27 December 1991

Greetings for New Year, 1992

Dear Mikhail Sergeyevich,

My best wishes for a Happy New Year!

You have done so much for our country, for Russia and the world. Thank you for that. You are our first President and were the first to start out on the road to Democracy, but as yet there is no Democracy in our country, no respect for Man, and it is going to be hard for you.

I wish you courage. God grant you and your family good health. I wish you all the best in the New Year.

I am only an ‘ordinary’ person, but if you need help, I will do my best to be useful to you.

N. A. Trifonova

Moscow

IAFTER PERESTROIKA

The 1990s: Defending Perestroika

What is it like when, after fate has raised you to leadership of a superpower, you find yourself in the kind of situation I was in during the first months of 1992? Not much fun, I can tell you.

My last month as president was tense and dramatic, but I continued doing all I could to keep open the prospect of renewal of the Soviet Union, and of cooperation and continuing ties between the former Soviet republics, which by then were already independent states. I did not cling to power at all costs, power for its own sake.

It was a bitter blow that Perestroika had been halted halfway, indeed when it was still only beginning. Already I was aware of just how deeply rooted the legacy of totalitarianism was, in our traditions, in people’s mindset and morality. It had seeped into almost every pore of the social organism. That deeply troubled me in those days and, more than 20 years later, still does.