The Greatest Geopolitical

Catastrophe: How the USSR

was killed
An Unofficial Translation of the Russian
By Alexander Petrovich Shevyakin
Translated by bourgeoishorizon@gmail.com
INTRODUCTION
During the years of the so-called “perestroika” of 1985–1991, so many events
worthy of a historian’s attention took place in the USSR that it is rather
difficult to isolate the main ones – those that ultimately influenced the final
event: the actual destruction of the Soviet Union itself. At the beginning of the
path we see so many complications of various kinds of tendencies that were
weak, timid, and only at the end fell into an avalanche that the traditional path
– from beginning to end – is somewhat difficult for our analysis: it will be
difficult to find this subtle. Therefore, the author found the answer for solving
his problem only at the very end of the historical chain. Then I went to the very
beginning – and very often the course branched and I had to retrace in order to
avoid dead ends – all just to find the most general picture of the phenomenon.
But to show our work to the reader is impossible – it will confuse him. And
therefore I do not distribute the mosaic of my searches, but rather a prepared
view of the results.
There is nothing new about this search method. The analytic and intelligence
community in the United States often uses the phrase “walking back the cat,”
which means reconstructing a view of the past as the key to understanding the
present. It is used if, for some reason, analysts missed the beginning of the
trend.
So, what is the very end of this “perestroika”? By my reckoning, it turned out
that in the end the whole chain was locked in the Kremlin office, as the former
first President of the USSR and so on, and so on. On December 25, at 19:30, he
signed the last Decree of the President of the USSR No. UP3162 “On the
resignation by the President of the USSR of the powers of the Supreme
Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces and the abolition of the Council of
Defense under the President of the USSR”, and then handed over the symbol of
his command, the so-called “nuclear suitcase,” to his successor B.N. Yeltsin.
From here I started my countdown.
First of all, is it necessary to show how to better understand such a historical
phenomenon as the Soviet Union? It is often spoken of too meaninglessly: a
multinational state, a socialist system, a communist empire (evil empire), etc.
We will not argue – the estimates are superficial, and we are used to the utmost
clarity, number, and/or dialectics. And dialectically, it was understood in the
following way: in November 1934, the Chairman of the Central Executive
Committee of the USSR, M.I. Kalinin, called the USSR a besieged fortress!
(See: [1.01. P. 44].) And this is a fairly accurate estimate. It was followed by
both the first Soviet leader V.I. Lenin, and his greatest follower J.V. Stalin;
even N.S. Khrushchev used similar phrasing every once in a while. But I must
say that at some point people just relaxed, allowed some loopholes to be
covered, never looked in certain directions, and at the last stage opened the
gates through which entire herds of Trojan horses poured. And in the end,
paraphrasing a famous expression, we can say that there are no fortresses
which scoundrels cannot surrender…
In the West, and especially in the United States, they looked at the USSR in
much the same way. The relevant literature often quotes Kennedy’s speech
when assuming the presidency of the United States:
“We will not be able to defeat the Soviet Union in a conventional war. It is an
impregnable fortress (highlighted by us. – A.S.). We will be able to defeat the
Soviet Union only by other methods: ideological, psychological, propaganda,
economic.” [See note 1 -Ed] This is precisely how the task was formulated to
undermine this fortress: to demoralize everyone living behind its walls, to bribe
some so that they disavowed the efforts of the incorruptible, and in the hour of
attack point not to the threat, but to the other side – where deceptive
maneuvers will be carried out, and most importantly: to organize the relocation
of the wall in a certain place. Which was done…
Even from the word “perestroika” itself it is clear there was a scrapping of
something before it or so-called “revolution from above.” This is known to all,
and here – at the level of general reasoning – no one argues. Currently, they
are trying to give only one explanation for this: the desire of local elites to rule
and own wealth independently. In this method, these authors do not apply
even at least a differentiated approach. The behavior of regional elites was
different: some of them sought maximum independence; some along with all,
no more, but no less; some were quite satisfied with the status quo, and until
recently, some participated in all unification actions and did not think of
themselves outside the new Union Treaty, etc.
But strictly and simultaneously the pogrom of the political center of the USSR
proceeded, and no one asks the question: in fact, what was primary:
a) to take away all 15 of the republics, or
b) to defeat the very center of the Union and only then get 15 new states.
And where is the goal, if not always explicit, and where are the resulting
effects?
What should have been the strength of 15 new centers from Moscow (the
strongest – Russian) to, say, Tallinn (I mention this city not because it is the
weakest, but because the Estonian SSR has always been the last in the
alphabet) to overpower the melting Union? Strictly speaking, the trends were
not equal and changed every moment. And one without the other is simply
unthinkable. Accelerated sovereignization of the Union republics under the
roar of unauthorized demonstrations and under the chatter of machine guns,
the flight to “national apartments” also took place, but much happened
through events in the center of Moscow, if you use the geographic reference: in
the Kremlin, on Old Square, on Dzerzhinsky Square. Yes, the Union, in the end,
was taken apart for the former Soviet republics. This is true. But that’s not all.
This is more of an effect than the essence of the pursued goal of those to whom
the plan belonged.
Out of respect for the intelligence of our reader, we did not allow ourselves to
counterfeit the most shoddy analyses. But sometimes it is necessary. Now let us
suppose that if it were not for events to undermine the control loop of the
Soviet state, the Union would remain in a somewhat truncated form (in
geopolitical terms): yes, it would have had to withdraw from Eastern Europe;
leave to the mercy of fate all its allies around the world; the Baltic states and
Transcaucasia would break away from it; and in the remaining Slavic republics
together, a change of order could occur.
But the entire center of the Union was completely erased, and thus through its
destruction so was the entire USSR. Therefore, we dare to argue that a more
general picture of the defeat of the USSR must necessarily include the main
thing: it was the integration of components that was defeated. In December
1991, the republics were left alone, without a center around which it was
possible to assemble. They were not given the opportunity to unite around
what was before. Imagine a situation in which a certain, even if virtual, Union
republic does not want to leave the Union: it does not make any decisions
about its “independence,” its people vote 100% for the preservation of the
Union by referendum – such an assumption is possible.
But what should it do, after December 25, 1991, when the President of the
USSR, Mikhail S. Gorbachev, leaves his post? Who should it contact? Not a
single official, not even the most miserable collegiate registrar of the union
structures, remains: all the positions in the center of Moscow are filled by
others… That is, if we say that the Union was pulled apart by the Nationals, this
is a mistake, and some authors follow this error.
Another is as follows. Just a few people are blamed for everything, with M.S.
Gorbachev and B.N. Yeltsin in the first place. When someone is accused of
something, I ask myself: was it possible for him to do it professionally? And
here the accusations against M. S. Gorbachev in co-authorship with B. N.
Yeltsin in the collapse of the USSR make me smile. It was the most difficult
intellectual task, which at the beginning did not even have a solution, in
principle, for its description it was necessary to connect the best forces,
perhaps, of the whole world. It is clearly not a task for their brains. How could
these two intellectual orphans (I remind you that one of them graduated from
the law school of the Moscow State University and the economic school of the
provincial agricultural institute, the other – the school of civil engineering)
figure out how such things are done at all? Everything was calculated on
computers here. Yes, legally they are guilty – this I don’t argue, but I strongly
doubt their intellectual abilities.
We interpret everything dialectically and from the position that the USSR was
a fortress … Most of all, the results of our research will lie in the field of
security. But we have come to issues of national security, which are being
worked out very, very poorly. What we are mainly going to do is called
“organizational war”. This is a subspecies of the so-called unconventional wars.
Organizational war is an unusual war even for a new class. It is a war that takes
place entirely in the silence of the offices of high commanders, at meetings and
conferences, during plenary sessions and parliamentary debates, as well as
outside official places, when things are decided in an informal setting.
It is conducted between two officials or entire teams where there are certain
leaders. One of them puts a visa on this or that report: “Denied!”, The other on
the same occasion: “Allowed!”; one writes: “Close!”, another: “Open!”And
everyone finds their arguments in favor of a particular decision. Which of them
is right, and which is not, is not immediately clear; this becomes apparent only
with time, when either something successfully functions, benefiting the state
and society, or vice versa. Then the line of one or the other official, his real face,
becomes clear. Organizational changes, managerial innovations, changes in
information flows often accompany bureaucratic life, and it is extremely
important here to distinguish accidents from obvious malicious intent, aimed
at the destruction and separation of the state.
An important point due to some changes will be space or lack thereof in
decision-making. When there is a whole range of solutions, and everything
suggests that each of the options clearly has positive aspects and it’s all about
choosing the best one – this is one thing, but what if, in fact, there are no
options and the only move – a forced one… In this case, the situation is already
precarious. One more step… And no matter what – a complete collapse. This
situation is now characterized as follows: “A threat to national security is an
action or sequence of events that can radically in a relatively short time (…)
narrow the range of political choices for the government of the state or private
non-governmental entities (individuals, groups, corporations) within the state”
[1.02. P. 5]. (Quoted from: [1.03. P. 4].)
That is, just as the politician recognizes such a view, that the space for
maneuvering is reduced, they sound the alarm: “ATTENTION! DANGER!” and
begin to react in the early stages of the threat, but if there there are many
threats?
Only those who have felt its effect on themselves are well aware of this war.
Thus, the former prime minister of the former Soviet Union, N.I. Ryzhkov,
announcing his resignation, called this phenomenon: “an undeclared war
against the government.” And it goes all the time and everywhere: state power
is gradually being destroyed … Everyone knows from the time of the great
Stalin that the party and Soviet apparatus are fastened with screws. But once
these screws are loosened, everything will fall out. That was done in the Union.
What else needs to be done to do to break the state machine? Pour sugar in the
gasoline, put a stick in the wheels, throw a bolt between the gears. Every little
bit adds up, not immediately, but imperceptibly and over time for sure. Yes,
J.V. Stalin said that “cadres decide everything,” but they decided everything
only when they were assembled into a clear organization. And now the former
deputy chairman of the Central Organizing Department of the Central
Committee, who had once been involved in these cadres, and then received a
promotion, E.K. Ligachev began to smash them, and then, at the next stage,
M.S. Gorbachev, who turned to the pogrom of structures, also joined in.
Everything that I am talking about here is as old as the world. It has been
known for a long time, translated, printed and accessible to everyone: “Usually
the rule of warfare is as follows: it is more important to keep the enemy’s state
intact than to destroy it …
Therefore, fighting and winning a hundred times is not the best of the best. The
best of the best is to conquer the enemy army without a fight.
…He who skillfully wages war conquers foreign troops without a battle,
captures foreign fortresses without a siege, crushes foreign states without a
long campaign. Without fail, having kept everything intact, he is fighting for
supremacy in the Middle Kingdom. Therefore, without resorting to war, you
can have benefits. This is the rule of strategic attack” [1.04. S. 41–42].
What is the special essence of this “war”? Yes, in the control system, the law of
the necessary diversity must be fulfilled: the controlling subsystem must be
adequate to the managed subsystem. It is obligatory for execution by any
systems – both natural and artificial origin. To maintain the homeostasis of a
dynamic system, it is necessary that the variety of control parameters
correspond to the variety of the components of the controlled objects. This is
especially emphasized in the writings of such a respected specialist as G.V.
Atamanchuk, Doctor of Law, who has been working in this field for a long time
[1.05. Pp. 105–108, 1.06. Pp. 99–108]. Any violation of this law leads to self-
destruction of the managed system. And if this happens in dynamics – then it
needs only a little “help” (from the outside or from the inside, coordinated by
joint efforts – it doesn’t matter), this process is significantly and irreversibly
accelerated. Moreover, a crisis in management is caused through an increase in
the speed of decision-making, which are initiated through the introduction of
“homework,” detonating mines previously laid (R.I. Kosolapov’s expression);
there is an aggravation of old problems that have not been solved in time, and
then the emergence of new ones, which have not yet been studied, but must be
reacted to; one after the other blows to the control circuit; if the blow happened
during normal operation of the system, it reacts to and extinguishes it, but
during times of crisis it cannot react with the same success and is forced to
change itself. The late Soviet system, which we will be studying, upon which
these events were inflicted, responded by triggering the self-destruction
mechanism of the information management center, which completely
destroyed the USSR.
In order to point out these events, let us talk about the USSR itself. The Soviet
Union represented a unique system. Even, one might say, super-system. For
the first time in world history, the 18-million-strong party, the party-state
administration apparatus, all economic institutes (enterprises, associations,
organizations and institutions), the army, the police, and others were directly
supervised from one center (the Kremlin). Probably, up to 95% of the 250-
million population of the country was in the control loop of this department.
About 5% of the population (some might argue, I do not presume to insist on a
figure!) – outside it: people with deviant behavior (criminal environment,
vagrants, prostitutes), dissidents who were under the leadership of the West,
unemployed, schismatics, shopkeepers.
It was the objective state of affairs with the over-centralization of power in the
USSR that made it possible, by eliminating only one center, to overturn the
entire system. For the shortest period of time, which has not yet been in human
history, this subject of administration was hacked, undermined, the resistance
was extinguished, its remnants were finished. There has been a dramatic
transformation of systemic existence from rationality to irrationality, from
function to dysfunction, from success to decline.
We ourselves are to blame for this, because we might know a lot about the
nature of structures, but this knowledge was simply neglected: “The arbitrary,
subjective character of numerous transformations of management structures
have always been a real scourge for our state. It is difficult to measure the
damage caused by endless reorganizations. Any new leader considered it his
first duty to break something, rebuild, to create something novel… Each
reorganization paralyzed the leadership of the relevant sectors for many
months, kept in limbo a huge army of highly qualified specialists, and broke
the fate of people.
The period of “perestroika”was no exception in this regard. How many
reorganizations have there been during it—countless!”[21. Pp. 29-30]. This
calculation we will do at the end of the book.
Who is to blame for what happened? What was the culprit: a crisis of power?
Gorbachev’s reformist Itch? Organizational changes? No. It was an
organizational war.
For me it was very important to sustain precisely the good level of quality that
was previously attained. There is still a lot of material on the methodological
and structural aspects. In the past, we have already written about the role of
“think tanks” of America, now we continue their coverage. There is a certain
level of complexity in these approaches, so here we could not but apply the
methods of system analysis. There was also a fair amount of obscurity, which
required a special kind of knowledge. Once again, it was necessary to
concentrate information only on the most important areas of the search and to
present it not in a historical-narrative form, but as a thematic conceptual
network.
Translator’s Endnotes
1This may be a summary of a translation of John F. Kennedy’s May 25, 1961
Special Message to Congress speech. One omitted section of the speech read:
“They possess a powerful intercontinental striking force, large forces for
conventional war, a well-trained underground in nearly every country, the
power to conscript talent and manpower for any purpose, the capacity for
quick decisions”
Another section of the speech read as follows:
“Third, I am directing the Secretary of Defense to expand rapidly and
substantially, in cooperation with our Allies, the orientation of existing forces
for the conduct of non-nuclear war, paramilitary operations and sub-limited
or unconventional wars. In addition our special forces and unconventional
warfare units will be increased and reoriented. Throughout the services new
emphasis must be placed on the special skills and languages which are
required to work with local populations.”
Source: https://www.jfklibrary.org/archives/other-resources/john-f-kennedy-
speeches/united-states-congress-special-message-19610525