When did the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States happen? CIS - transcript

Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan

Kazakh National Agrarian University

Department: Social disciplines

On the topic: The collapse of the USSR and the creation of the CIS

Performed)_______________________________

Checked by: ______________________________

Almaty 2010

Introduction
Chapter I. Disintegration processes in USSR
1. Confrontation between the center and the republics
2. Nationalism and separatism. Parade of sovereignties
3. Trials to strengthen the union power. Novoogaryovsky process
Chapter II. Collapse of the USSR
1. Resumption of the Novoogaryovsky process
2. Draft OSSG contract
3. Creation of the CIS
Chapter III. Formation and development of the CIS
1. Reasons for integration
2. Our homeland is the CIS
3. Documents of the Commonwealth
Conclusion
Bibliography

INTRODUCTION

In December 1991, the Alliance of Russian Socialist Republics ceased to exist. Several republics that were previously part of the Soviet federation announced the development of former USSR new interstate formation - the Commonwealth of Independent Countries.
Disintegration processes began in the Russian Union already in the mid-1980s. During this period, as the ideological dictate and omnipotence of the CPSU weakened, a crisis of the country's national-state structure manifested itself. It turned out that there are many ethnic conflicts in the country that, in an atmosphere of glasnost, surfaced (for example, Georgian-Abkhazian, Armenian-Azerbaijani). Nationalist movements were gaining strength in the republics, which were partly supported by the republican administration, which feared for its fate in the light of the uncertain prospects of the CPSU. In a number of republics, things have worsened between the titular civilizations and the Russians. The Office of the Russian Union attempted to bring nationalist movements under control by encouraging "the growth of state consciousness of all nations." But, as it turns out, the country’s administration did not have a program for solving government problems, or the ability to respond promptly and effectively to the aggravation of ethnic conflicts. As a result, armed clashes escalated into interethnic wars. Attempts to solve the problem of nationalism with the help of troops did not lead to positive results, and even more pushed national movements to fight for secession from the USSR.
The weakening of the union was facilitated by the growing economic crisis. M. Gorbachev and the central government, obviously unable to cope with the task of overcoming the economic downturn and reforming the economy, were losing authority with both the people and the administration of the union republics every year.
The center failed to develop a new unifying ideology to replace the outdated communist one. As a result of all this, the state center, left without a supranational idea, objectively worked against one country.
In this work we will try to trace the main stages of the collapse of the USSR and the establishment of new relationships between the former Russian republics within the CIS.

CHAPTER I. DISINTEGRATION PROCESSES IN THE USSR

Nationalism and separatism appeared in the first years of perestroika. On December 17-19, 1986, in Alma-Ata, under the pretext that Kolbin was appointed to the post of first secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan instead of Kunaev, thousands of young Kazakhs created chaos. Two Russian vigilantes died, over a thousand people turned to medical institutions for help. Troops were used to restore order. Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh autonomous region escalated into war. All attempts to stop this conflict led to nothing.
Along with spontaneous manifestations of nationalism, nationalist organizations, the so-called Popular Fronts, were created. The movement for national independence gained greater momentum in the Baltic republics.
One of the forms of this struggle was criticism of Russian history. In August 1987, in connection with the anniversary of the conclusion of the Soviet-German non-aggression pact, demonstrations took place in the Baltic states demanding the publication of hidden protocols and telling the public about mass deportations during Stalin's times. On November 16, 1988, the Supreme Council of Estonia approved changes and additions to the Constitution of the republic, allowing its highest authorities to suspend the operation of legislative acts of the USSR. A declaration of the sovereignty of the republic was immediately adopted. On November 17-18, the Supreme Council of Lithuania introduced an amendment to the Constitution giving the Lithuanian language the status of a municipal language. Similar additions were made to the Constitutions of Estonia (December 1988) and Latvia (May 1989). In 1989, the Baltic Popular Fronts declared the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact illegal, and, therefore, the inclusion of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia into the USSR illegal. The favorite of the Lithuanian Popular Front "Sąjūdis" V. Landsbergis announced in the "Manifesto of Lithuanian Freedom" that his organization aims to conquer power in the republic and proclaim its complete independence. The same goals were proclaimed by the Popular Fronts of Estonia and Latvia.
In April 1989, a rally took place in Tbilisi under the slogans “Independence of Georgia” and “Down with the Russian Empire.” The Georgian administration was at a loss. The Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Republic appealed to the Central Committee of the CPSU with a request to introduce a state of emergency. It was decided to send troops to Tbilisi. On the night of April 8-9, the meeting was dispersed by troops. 16 people died. These actions gave a powerful impetus to the development of the state movement in Georgia.
In May-June 1989, the First Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR was held. At it, more radical deputies demanded the dismantling of the “unitary imperial state” and the formation of a new voluntary federation. But at this congress, representatives of state movements did not achieve support for their own demands.
Having been defeated at the congress, the nationalists tried to resolve the issue of independence in the Supreme Soviets of their own republics. Political struggle in the republics reached unusual severity. The Republican Communist Parties tried to resist the state movements that were gaining strength, but they lost their former influence and solidity, and the Communist Party of Lithuania split into two independent parties. The eagerness of the administration of some republican communist parties to rely on the support of the center undermined their authority and played into the hands of the nationalists. The results of the elections to the Supreme Councils of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Georgia, and Armenia turned out to be bad for the communists. In the Supreme Councils of these republics, the majority were supporters of state independence, who began to decide steps to leave the USSR. But even in the republics in which the communists received the majority of votes in the elections, the Supreme Councils, one after another, began to adopt Declarations of State Sovereignty, which proclaimed, first of all, the supremacy of republican laws over union laws.
The so-called “parade of sovereignties” and “war of laws” began in the country. On June 12, 1990, a declaration on the municipal sovereignty of the RSFSR was adopted (907 deputies were in favor, 13 were against, 9 abstained), on July 16, a declaration on the sovereignty of Ukraine, and on July 27, a declaration on the sovereignty of Belarus. In August, the decision to declare sovereignty was made by the Supreme Council of Armenia, and in October by the Supreme Councils of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. In June of the same year, at a session of the Supreme Council of the Estonian SSR, a decision was made to stop funding from the republican budget the activities of the KGB and the military registration and enlistment office of the ESSR. In August, a session of the Supreme Council of the Armenian SSR decided to stop the Decree of the President of the Russian Union “On the prohibition of the creation of armed formations not provided for by the legislation of the USSR, and the seizure of weapons in cases of illegal storage” in the territory of the republic.
In September, the Presidium of the Supreme Council of Ukraine, by a special decree, prohibited the sale of agricultural products outside the republic's borders in excess of the established export limits. At the end of 1990, our homeland decided to reduce contributions to the union budget by 5 times. On July 21, 1990, on the day of the 50th anniversary of the proclamation of Russian power in Lithuania and Latvia, the Presidium of the Supreme Council of Lithuania published a statement in which July 21 was assessed as “a day of resentment, shame and misfortune.” The Supreme Council of Latvia declared the declaration of the Seimas of July 21, 1940 “On Latvia’s accession to the USSR” to be invalid from the moment of its adoption.
Sovereignization took place not only in the union republics, but also in the autonomous republics. In the RSFSR, the Mongolian, Bashkir, Kalmyk, Chuvash regions declared their own municipal sovereignty autonomous republics. In Moldova, the Transnistrian Moldavian Russian Socialist Republic and the Gagauz Republic were proclaimed as part of the renewed USSR.
In the spring of 1990, the Supreme Councils of the Baltic republics adopted declarations of independence. The Russian Alliance was on the verge of collapse. The Union authorities, who did not want the expansion of the rights and independence of the republics, tried to suspend the sovereignization processes.
Doing this with military force turned out to be problematic for the center. In the options for deploying troops, the country's administration acted inconsistently and indecisively. The Tbilisi actions of 1989, and then attempts to use force to prevent the Baltic republics from leaving the USSR (clashes between protesters and riot police units in January 1991 in Vilnius and Riga; 14 people died in the capital of Lithuania), ended in casualties and attempts to overthrow the political administration All the blame is on the military. M. Gorbachev stated that he was not informed about the upcoming military operations. Regarding the events in the Baltic states, the President of the USSR made an ambiguous statement, from which it followed that the clashes occurred spontaneously, the military acted without instructions from above: “The events that took place in Vilnius and Riga are in no way an expression of the streak of presidential power for which it was created. And therefore I resolutely reject all speculations, all suspicions and slander due to this... Actions in the Baltic states appeared in a situation of severe crisis. Illegal acts, gross violation. civil rights, discrimination against people of other nationalities, irresponsible behavior towards the army, military personnel and their families have created an environment, an atmosphere where such clashes and massacres can simply arise for the most unexpected reasons. This is where the source of the catastrophe that happened is, and not in mythical orders from above... As President, I see the main task in preventing the escalation of the confrontation, in restoring the situation... At the same time, no unauthorized acts on the part of the troops are acceptable."*

In the spring of 1991, the Union authorities tried to put forceful pressure on the government of the Russian Federation. On the opening day of the Third Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR, troops were brought into Moscow to support the removal of Boris Yeltsin from the post of Chairman of the Supreme Council, which was being prepared at the congress by communist deputies. But this caused exactly the opposite effect. Yeltsin's removal did not take place. Moreover, it was decided to introduce the post of president in the RSFSR. M. Gorbachev was obliged to admit his mistake. The troops were withdrawn from the capital.
The confrontation between Russian and allied authorities played a crucial role in the fate of the USSR. Almost all the republics did not decide on radical steps, waiting to see how the struggle in Moscow would end. The affairs of the administration of the Russian Federation and the Union began to worsen after Russia adopted the declaration of sovereignty. The intensification of confrontation between them was also facilitated by different visions of further economic and political transformations in the country. The Russian administration did not hide its desire to transform the economy on a market basis and end the autocracy of the CPSU. Conservatives, who predominated in the union power structures, opposed this. The specificity of this confrontation was that both the liberals, as B. Yeltsin was called by the Russian authorities, and the conservatives, proceeded from the premise that perestroika had reached a dead end and it was necessary to urgently change the course of reforms. Conservatives called for a return to socialist, class values, and liberals - to bourgeois ones. Both of them strongly criticized M. Gorbachev.
M. Gorbachev was obliged to maneuver between these last two points of view, not daring to resort to firm measures to restore the former USSR or to break with the CPSU and embark on radical market reforms. In order to strengthen the central power and strengthen his own position, Gorbachev took the initiative to introduce the post of President of the USSR. The presidential elections took place on March 15, 1990 at the III Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR. M. Gorbachev became president, as expected. But the increase in power status could not save him from losing his authority among people. In addition, the election of Gorbachev as president at a congress, and not by popular vote, deprived his post of the necessary legitimacy, which severely doomed his presidential activities to failure.
As president, M. Gorbachev directed his efforts primarily to preserving the Union, agreeing to certain concessions to the republics and signing a new union contract. Perhaps he had no other choice. According to some estimates, Gorbachev had one chance to preserve himself as an influential political figure - to successfully complete the process of reforming the USSR and conclude a new alliance agreement.

One way or another, M. Gorbachev sought to preserve the Alliance as a Federation, throw very huge opportunities behind the center, and sign the Union Contract as soon as possible. In mid-November 1990, the President of the USSR, at a meeting of the governors of the union republics, proposed an 8-point program to bring the USSR out of the economic and political crisis. Most of the proposals were aimed at strengthening, expanding and concentrating the supreme executive power in the USSR. It was supposed to transform the Federation Council into a permanent body consisting of the governing republics, reorganize the entire executive power, subordinating it specifically to the president. In addition, take emergency measures to strengthen law and order, social protection of certain categories of people, etc. The leaders of the republics did not approve of this plan.
M. Gorbachev made another attempt to strengthen the central government at the IV Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR. The Congress gave the President additional opportunities. Namely, he received the right to specifically manage the government, headed the Federation Council and the Security Council of the USSR. The position of vice president was introduced, to which G. Yanaev was appointed.
But in reality, the central power not only did not strengthen, but weakened day by day. Data on the situation in the country released in April 1991 indicated that less than 40% of the planned cash receipts from the republics went to the union budget. In this situation, M. Gorbachev decided to appeal to the people. On March 17, 1991, a referendum was held on the preservation of the Russian Union. The population of 9 union republics took part in it. The majority voted to preserve the renewed Union.
The results of the referendum prompted Gorbachev to intensify the negotiation process on reforming the union country. But time was already lost. Some republics, firmly oriented towards secession from the Union, did not take a role in the negotiations.
These negotiations, which began in April 1991, received the name Novoogaryovsky process, after the name of the residence of the President of the USSR near Moscow, where they took place. In the Novoogarevo process, 9 union republics (RSFSR, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan) and the union center as an independent participant in the discussions took the role.

CIS - Commonwealth of Independent States - an abbreviation of the name of the new association of former union republics of the USSR, which became independent states after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991

The formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) occurred on December 8, 1991 as a result of the signing of a corresponding agreement in Viskuli (Brest region, Belarus) by the heads of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus

List of CIS member countries (2016)

• Azerbaijan
• Armenia
• Belarus
• Kazakhstan
• Kyrgyzstan
• Moldova
• Russia
• Tajikistan
• Uzbekistan

Members of the CIS are those states that, within 1 year (from January 22, 1993 to January 22, 1994), assumed the obligations arising from the Charter adopted on January 22, 1993 by the Council of Heads of State. Ukraine and Turkmenistan have not signed the Charter

In addition, in the CIS Charter there is the concept of a founding state of the CIS. The founding state of the CIS is considered to be the state whose parliament ratified the Agreement on the Creation of the CIS dated December 8, 1991 and the Protocol to this Agreement dated December 21, 1991. Turkmenistan has ratified these documents. Ukraine has only ratified the Agreement. Thus, Ukraine and Turkmenistan are founders of the CIS, but not its members

The protocol of December 21, 1991 was also not ratified by the parliaments of Russia and Ukraine, and on March 5, 2003, the State Duma Committee of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation on CIS Affairs came to the conclusion that the Russian Federation is de jure not a founding state of the CIS and a member state

History of the creation of the CIS

• 1991, December 8 - the heads of Ukraine, Russia and Belarus Kravchuk, Yeltsin and Shushkevich signed an agreement on the creation of the CIS (Beloveshsky Agreement)
• 1991, December 10 - The agreement was ratified by the parliaments of Belarus and Ukraine

Ratification is the giving of legal force to a document (for example, a contract) by approval by the appropriate authority of each of the parties. That is, ratification is the state’s agreement to comply with the terms of the treaty.

• 1991, December 12 - The agreement was ratified by the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation
• 1991, December 13 - meeting in Ashgabat (Turkmenistan) of the heads of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan. who expressed consent for their countries to join the CIS
• 1991, December 21 - in Almaty, the leaders of Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Ukraine adopted the Declaration on the goals and principles of the CIS and signed the Protocol to the agreement on the creation of the CIS

Protocol
to the Agreement on the establishment of the Commonwealth of Independent States, signed on December 8, 1991 in Minsk by the Republic of Belarus, the Russian Federation (RSFSR), Ukraine
The Republic of Azerbaijan, the Republic of Armenia, the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Republic of Kyrgyzstan, the Republic of Moldova, the Russian Federation (RSFSR), the Republic of Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, the Republic of Uzbekistan and Ukraine on an equal basis and as High Contracting Parties form the Commonwealth of Independent States.
The Agreement on the establishment of the Commonwealth of Independent States comes into force for each of the High Contracting Parties from the moment of its ratification.
Based on the Agreement on the Creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States and taking into account the reservations made during its ratification, documents regulating cooperation within the Commonwealth will be developed.
This Protocol is an integral part of the Agreement on the establishment of the Commonwealth of Independent States.
Done in Alma-Ata on December 21, 1991 in one copy in Azerbaijani, Armenian, Belarusian, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Moldavian, Russian, Tajik, Turkmen, Uzbek and Ukrainian languages. All texts are equally valid. The original copy is kept in the archives of the Government of the Republic of Belarus, which will send a certified copy of this Protocol to the High Contracting Parties

• 1991, December 30 - in Minsk, at another meeting of the CIS heads of state, the highest body of the CIS was established - the Council of Heads of State
• 1992, October 9 - CIS TV channel “Mir” was created
• 1993, January 22 - the CIS Charter was adopted in Minsk
• 1993, March 15 - Kazakhstan was the first of the post-Soviet republics to ratify the CIS Charter
• 1993, December 9 - The CIS Charter was ratified by Georgia
• 1994, April 26 - Moldova was the last of the post-Soviet republics to ratify the CIS Charter
• 1999, April 2 - the CIS Executive Committee was created
• 2000, June 21 - The CIS Anti-Terrorism Center was created
• 2008, August 14 - The Georgian Parliament decided to withdraw the country from the CIS
• 2009, August 18 - Georgia officially ceased to be a member of the CIS

CIS goals

• Economic Cooperation
• Cooperation in the field of ecology
• Cooperation in the field of ensuring the rights and freedoms of CIS citizens
• Military cooperation

The unified command of military-strategic forces and unified control over nuclear weapons have been preserved, issues of defense and protection of external borders are being resolved jointly

• Cooperation in the development of transport, communications, energy systems
• Cooperation in the fight against crime
• Cooperation in migration policy

Governing bodies of the CIS

• Council of Heads of State of the CIS
• Council of Heads of Government of the CIS
• CIS Executive Committee
• Council of Foreign Ministers of the CIS
• Council of CIS Defense Ministers
• Council of Ministers of Internal Affairs of the CIS countries
• Council of the United Armed Forces of the CIS Countries
• Council of Commanders of Border Troops of the CIS Countries
• Council of Heads of Security Agencies of the CIS Countries
• Interstate Economic Council of the CIS
• Interparliamentary Assembly of the CIS

On October 28, 2016, a meeting of the Council of Heads of Government of the member countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) was held in Minsk. Leader of Belarus Lukashenko: “...the critical mass of accumulated issues is causing us in Belarus to be alarmed about the prospects of...the CIS...Justified criticism has intensified in our countries due to dissatisfaction with both the pace and practical results of the development of integration. There are warning signs from businesses... it's worth taking a critical look at legal framework CIS. Over the past 25 years, we have signed an incredible amount of decisions, treaties and agreements. Are they all relevant and necessary today? I really want that during Russia’s chairmanship in 2017 we will be able to get clear answers: in the name of what has integration been carried out all these years and what goal is ultimately being pursued?”

Collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States

Throughout 1990 and especially 1991, one of the main problems facing the USSR was the problem of signing a new Union Treaty. Work on its preparation led to the emergence of several projects that were published in 1991. In March 1991, on the initiative of M. Gorbachev, an all-Union referendum was held on the question of whether or not to exist the USSR and what it should be like. The majority of the population of the USSR voted to preserve the USSR.

This process was accompanied by an exacerbation of interethnic contradictions that led to open conflicts (pogroms of the Armenian population in Sumgait in 1989, in Baku in 1990, Nagorno-Karabakh, clashes between Uzbeks and Kyrgyz in the Osh region in 1990, armed conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia in 1991).
The actions of the Union Center and the army command (the dispersal of demonstrations in Tbilisi by troops in April 1989, the deployment of troops in Baku, the seizure of the television center in Vilnius by the army) contributed to the incitement of interethnic conflicts. As a result of interethnic conflicts, by 1991, about 1 million refugees appeared in the USSR.

The new authorities in the union republics, formed as a result of the 1990 elections, turned out to be more determined to change than the union leadership. By the end of 1990, almost all republics of the USSR adopted Declarations of their sovereignty and the supremacy of republican laws over union ones. A situation arose that observers dubbed a “parade of sovereignties” and a “war of laws.” Political power gradually moved from the Center to the republics.

The confrontation between the Center and the Republic was expressed not only in the “war of laws”, i.e. situations when the republics declared, one after another, the supremacy of republican laws over union ones, but also in a situation when the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and the Supreme Councils of the union republics adopted laws that contradict each other. Some republics disrupted military conscription; bypassing the Center, concluded bilateral agreements with each other on state relations and economic cooperation.

At the same time, both in the Center and locally, fears and fears of the uncontrollable collapse of the USSR were brewing. All this taken together gave special significance to the negotiations on the new Union Treaty. In the spring and summer of 1991, meetings of the heads of the republics were held at the residence of the President of the USSR M. Gorbachev, Novo-Ogarevo, near Moscow. As a result of long and difficult negotiations an agreement was reached, called “9 + 1”, i.e. nine republics and the Center that decided to sign the Union Treaty. The text of the latter was published in the press, the signing of the agreement was scheduled for August 20th.

M. Gorbachev went on vacation to Crimea, to Foros, intending to return to Moscow on August 19. On August 18, some senior officials from state, military and party structures arrived to M. Gorbachev in Foros and demanded that he authorize the introduction throughout the country state of emergency. The President refused to comply with these demands.

On August 19, 1991, the Decree of Vice-President G. Yanaev and the Statement of the Soviet leadership were read out on radio and television, in which it was announced that M. Gorbachev was ill and that he was unable to fulfill his duties, and that all power in the country was being taken over by myself State Committee according to the state of emergency of the USSR (GKChP), which was introduced, “meeting the demands of broad sections of the population,” throughout the entire territory of the USSR for a period of 6 months from 4 o’clock on August 19, 1991. The State Emergency Committee included: G. Yanaev - Vice-President of the USSR, V. Pavlov - Prime Minister, V. Kryuchkov - Chairman of the KGB of the USSR, B. Pugo - Minister of Internal Affairs, O. Baklanov - first Chairman of the USSR Defense Council, A. Tizyakov is the chairman of the Association of State Enterprises and Industrial, Transport and Communication Facilities of the USSR and V. Starodubtsev is the chairman of the Peasant Union.

On August 20, a kind of manifesto of the State Emergency Committee was published - “Appeal to the Soviet people.” It said that perestroika had reached a dead end (“the results of the national referendum on the unity of the Fatherland have been trampled, tens of millions have lost the joy of life Soviet people... in the very near future a new round of impoverishment is inevitable." The second part of the “Appeal” consisted of promises from the State Emergency Committee: to hold a national discussion of the draft of the new Union Treaty, restore law and order, support private entrepreneurship, solve food and housing problems, etc.
On the same day, Resolution No. 1 of the State Emergency Committee was published, which ordered that laws and decisions of government and administrative bodies that contradict the laws and Constitution of the USSR be considered invalid, that rallies and demonstrations be prohibited, and that control over funds be established. mass media, they promised to reduce prices, allocate 0.15 hectares of land to those who wanted it, and increase wages.

The first reaction to the fact of the creation of the State Emergency Committee in Kazakhstan was wait-and-see. All republican newspapers, radio and television of the republic conveyed to the population all the documents of the State Emergency Committee. According to the chairman of the USSR State Television and Radio Broadcasting Company L. Kravchenko, N. Nazarbayev prepared a special video with words of recognition and support for the State Emergency Committee. N. Nazarbayev's televised address was sent to Moscow for broadcast on Channel One, but was not shown.

Published on August 19, N. Nazarbayev’s address “To the People of Kazakhstan” did not contain any assessments of what was happening and boiled down to calls for calm and restraint; it also indicated that a state of emergency was not being introduced on the territory of Kazakhstan. In Almaty on August 19, only a few representatives of democratic parties and movements - “Azat”, “Azamat”, “Alash”, “Unity”, “Nevada-Semey”, SDPK, the “Birlesy” trade union, etc. gathered a rally and issued a leaflet , in which the incident was called a coup d'etat and called on Kazakhstanis not to be accomplices in the crime and to bring the coup organizers to justice.

On the second day of the putsch, August 20, N. Nazarbayev issued a Statement in which he expressed his condemnation of the putsch in cautious terms, but still definitely. In the republic as a whole, many heads of regions and departments actually supported the putschists, developing, with varying degrees of readiness, measures to transition to a state of emergency.

On August 21, the coup failed. Gorbachev M. returned to Moscow. General Prosecutor's Office opened criminal cases against the conspirators. After the defeat of the putsch, a series of actions by the President and Parliament of Kazakhstan followed.

On the same day, N. Nazarbayev’s Decree of August 22 “On cessation of the activities of organizational structures of political parties, other public associations and mass social movements in the authorities there are prosecutors, state security, internal affairs, police, state arbitration, courts and customs of the Kazakh SSR."

On August 25, the Presidential Decree “On the property of the CPSU on the territory of the Kazakh SSR” was issued, according to which the property of the CPSU located on the territory of Kazakhstan was declared the property of the state.

On August 28, the Plenum of the CPC Central Committee was held, at which N. Nazarbayev resigned from his duties as the first secretary of the CPC Central Committee. The Plenum adopted two resolutions: on the termination of the activities of the Central Committee of the CPC and on the convening of the XVIII (extraordinary) Congress of the Communist Party of Kazakhstan in September 1991 with the agenda “On the Communist Party of Kazakhstan in connection with the political situation in the country and the CPSU.”

On August 30, the Presidential Decree of August 28 “On the inadmissibility of combining leadership positions in bodies of state power and administration with positions in political parties and other socio-political associations.”

August 29 - Decree on the closure of the Semipalatinsk nuclear test site.
In addition, N. Nazarbayev issued decrees “On the formation of the Security Council of the KazSSR”, “On the transfer of state-owned enterprises and organizations of union subordination to the jurisdiction of the government of the KazSSR”, “On the creation of the gold reserve and diamond fund of the KazSSR”, “On ensuring the independence of foreign economic activity of the KazSSR” .

After August 1991, the process of collapse of the USSR proceeded at a faster pace. In September 1991, the V (extraordinary) Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR took place in Moscow. At the suggestion of M. Gorbachev, N. Nazarbayev read out a statement by the President of the USSR and the top leaders of the union republics, which proposed:

• - firstly, to urgently conclude an economic union between the republics;
• -secondly, in the conditions of the transition period, to create the State Council as the highest authority of the USSR.

On September 5, 1991, the congress adopted the Constitutional Law on Power in the Transitional Period, and then resigned its powers to the State Council of the USSR and the then not yet formed Supreme Council of the USSR. This desperate attempt by M. Gorbachev to preserve the Center was not crowned with success - most of the republics did not send their representatives to the State Council.

However, the State Council, consisting of senior officials of the USSR republics, began its work on September 9, 1991 with the recognition of the independence of the Baltic states. The USSR was officially reduced to 12 republics.
In October, eight union republics signed the Economic Community Treaty, but it was not respected. The process of disintegration increased.

In November 1991, in Novo-Ogarevo, seven republics (Russia, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, Tajikistan) declared their intention to create a new interstate entity - the Union of Sovereign States (USS). The G7 leaders decided to sign a new Union Treaty by the end of 1991. Its initialing was scheduled for November 25, 1991. But that didn’t happen either. Only ML Gorbachev put his signature, and the project itself was sent for approval to the parliaments of seven republics. It was just an excuse. In fact, everyone was waiting for the outcome of the referendum on Ukrainian independence scheduled for December 1, 1991.

The population of Ukraine, which unanimously voted for the preservation of the USSR in March 1991, voted equally unanimously for the complete independence of Ukraine in December 1991, thereby burying M. Gorbachev’s hopes of preserving the USSR.
The powerlessness of the Center led to the fact that on December 8, 1991, in Belovezhskaya Pushcha, near Brest, the leaders of Belarus, Russia, and Ukraine signed the Agreement on the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). This Agreement declared that the USSR as a subject of international law ceased to exist. The reaction of the Asian republics to the creation of the CIS was negative. Their leaders perceived the fact of the formation of the CIS as an application for the creation of a Slavic federation and, as a consequence, the possibility of political confrontation between the Slavic and Turkic peoples.

On December 13, 1991, at an urgently convened meeting in Ashgabat of the leaders of the “five” (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan), the leader of Turkmenistan S. Niyazov (according to N. Nazarbayev) proposed considering the possibility of creating a Confederation of Central Asian States in response to the decisions in Belovezhskaya Pushcha.

Ultimately, the leaders of the “five” made it clear that they did not intend to join the CIS as affiliated participants, but only as founders, on an equal basis, on “neutral” territory. Common sense prevailed, decency was observed, and on December 21, a meeting of the leaders of the Troika (Belarus, Russia, Ukraine) and the Five (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan) took place in Almaty.

At the Alma-Ata meeting, the Declaration () was adopted on the cessation of the existence of the USSR and the formation of the CIS consisting of eleven states.

On December 25, M. Gorbachev signed a Decree relieving himself of the functions of Supreme Commander-in-Chief and announced his resignation from the post of President of the USSR. On December 26, one of the two chambers of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR that was able to convene - the Council of Republics - adopted a formal Declaration on the cessation of the existence of the USSR.
The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics ceased to exist.
The participants of the Alma-Ata meeting adopted a package of documents,
according to which:

• - stated territorial integrity members of the Commonwealth of States;
• — unified command of military-strategic forces and unified control over nuclear weapons were maintained;
• — the highest authorities of the CIS “Council of Heads of State” and “Council of Heads of Government” were created;
• - the open character of the Commonwealth was declared.

Introduction

In the late 80s - early 90s of the XX century in the USSR there was a reassessment of Marxist-Leninist ideology and administrative-command methods of managing the economy and society. This ideology was replaced by the recognition of universal human values ​​and the achievements of world socio-political thought, and the democratization of the entire Russian society.

These and many other factors led to the fact that in December 1991, the leaders of the RSFSR, Ukraine and Belarus signed the Belovezhskaya Agreement on the collapse of the USSR and the formation of the CIS.

The relevance of the study is due to the socio-political transformations of Russian statehood - the liquidation Soviet system public administration, the collapse of the Soviet Union and, as a consequence, the creation of new authorities in the Russian Federation, that is, the historical and political dynamics observed in the country at the end of the 20th century and radically changed Russian statehood generally.

In the course of this work, the main directions of the USSR foreign policy of 1985-1991, the crisis socialist camp, the collapse of the USSR and the creation of the CIS.

politics thinking perestroika independent

1. The main directions of the foreign policy of the USSR 1985-1991 of the twentieth century. and the concept of new political thinking

With the beginning of perestroika, serious changes occurred in the foreign policy of the USSR. It was based on a philosophical and political concept called new political thinking. This concept proclaimed the rejection of class-ideological confrontation and was based on the thesis of a diverse, but interdependent and integral world. In a system of interconnected states, everything global problems: nuclear disarmament, ecology, medicine, etc. could only be decided jointly, based on the recognition of: a) the priority of universal human values ​​over class values; b) transition from confrontation to dialogue as the main form international relations; c) de-ideologization of international relations; d) strict respect for the right of every people to freely choose their destiny; e) understanding the impossibility of a military solution to interstate disputes and finding a balance of interests.

The deterioration of relations with the United States and its allies in the early 1980s presented the leaders of the USSR with a choice: to follow the path of building up military power or to look for new approaches to relations with the West. The first path promised new rounds of the arms race and great difficulties for the Soviet economy. In addition, the leadership of the USSR reacted painfully to criticism of the policies of both superpowers that abandoned détente from non-aligned countries, the public of Western and of Eastern Europe.

The search for new opportunities for dialogue began with meetings between the leaders of the USSR and the USA, M.S. Gorbachev and R. Reagan, in Geneva in 1985 and in Reykjavik in 1986. Although they did not result in concrete agreements, the parties’ desire to eliminate the risk of nuclear war from the lives of nations was confirmed.

President of the USSR M.S. In 1987-1988, Gorbachev proposed the concept of new political thinking, which made it possible to end the Cold War.

Firstly, this concept assumed that since nuclear war will be a disaster for all humanity, then the threat of using nuclear weapons, as well as their possession, have ceased to serve the achievement of reasonable political goals. This conclusion became the basis for putting forward far-reaching proposals for arms reductions, including the elimination of nuclear weapons by the year 2000.

Secondly, the highest value of the new political thinking was to ensure the survival of humanity, which was threatened by the unresolved number of problems, from the nuclear threat to the deterioration of the environment. Considering that these problems could only be solved by the joint efforts of the leading countries of the world, the main goal of the policy was to ensure their cooperation.

Thirdly, interaction based on trust required a rejection of the logic and ideology of confrontation. New thinking involved finding a balance of interests based on mutual concessions and strict adherence to international legal norms.

Nomination new concept in itself could not ensure the end of the Cold War. Initially, it was perceived in Western countries as a tactical move designed to give the USSR and its allies time to solve internal problems. However, the unilateral steps of the USSR soon showed that we're talking about about real changes in Soviet politics. In 1987 - 1990, the USSR made major unilateral reductions in the number of Soviet armed forces.

In a statement by M.S. Gorbachev on January 15, 1986, in the Delhi Declaration (November 1986), which he signed, in his speech at the XXVII Congress of the CPSU, emphasized the recognition by the Soviet leadership of the priority of universal values ​​over class values, commitment to new political thinking, peaceful resolution of conflicts, and disarmament. The most important events were the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Eastern Europe, the end of the war and the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan. Soviet-American relations continued to be the central core of Soviet foreign policy. Over the years, several meetings of President M.S. took place. Gorbachev with US Presidents R. Reagan and G. Bush. In 1987, a treaty on the elimination of intermediate- and shorter-range missiles was signed. In the summer of 1991, an agreement was signed on a significant reduction in strategic offensive weapons. A few months later, the parties exchanged new initiatives in the field of disarmament.

In March 1989, during the visit of M.S. Gorbachev to the People's Republic of China, Soviet-Chinese relations were normalized. At the beginning of 1991, during the Gulf War, the USSR, together with the countries of the world community, condemned the actions of Iraq. For many decades, this was the first time that the USSR took the side of the leading countries of the world against its former allies, although it did not take part in hostilities. In the summer of 1991, for the first time, the Soviet President was invited to the annual traditional meeting of the leaders of the seven leading countries. At the meeting, measures were discussed to assist the USSR in overcoming economic crisis and the transition to a market economy. The deterioration of the internal economic situation forced Soviet leadership make large, often unilateral, concessions to the West in the hope of gaining economic assistance and political support.

The crisis in the Soviet state, the weakening of its economic and military power, the abandonment of previous priorities, such as assistance and support to the communist, workers and national liberation movements, and the increasing alignment with the policies of the capitalist states of the West caused a change in relations with former allies. After the Soviet Union established trade and economic relations with the countries of the Council of Mutual Economic Assistance on a currency-dollar basis in January 1991, economic and then political ties began to quickly collapse. In March 1991 it ceased to exist military organization Warsaw Pact, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance completed its activities.

Thus, during this period, major political changes occurred that led to a warming of relations between the USSR and the West, as well as with the PRC. The USSR is revising its external political relations which leads to the most important thing: the end of the Cold War and the disarmament of the nuclear potential of the two superpowers.

Crisis of the socialist camp

The period of the late 70s early 80s. XX century in the USSR was marked by a growing socio-economic crisis. The reason was: the isolation of the public administration system from civil society, failure to implement large social programs (food, housing, healthcare, production of consumer goods, environmental), the inability of the party-state apparatus to rebuild the country's economy in accordance with the new stage of the scientific and technological revolution, as well as the emphasis of the state elite on the sale of oil and gas.

This led to the fact that already at the end of the 70s there was a sharp lag between the USSR and developed countries. capitalist countries West by pace economic development. There were no real attempts to reform the economy in accordance with the requirements of the scientific and technological revolution. A distinctive feature of this era was the growth in the scale of illegal industrial and commercial activities and corruption. In this situation, all those who entered leadership positions sought to enrich themselves. Merging occurs government agencies and speculative capital.

By the beginning of the 80s of the twentieth century. The ineffectiveness of limited reform of the Soviet system became obvious. To solve these problems, it was first necessary to radically improve the administrative and management system.

In addition, in the period from 1982 to 1985. in the political circles of the USSR there was a fierce struggle for power, this is evidenced by the frequent change of persons holding the post of General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee: from November 1982 - Yu.V. Andropov, and after his death in February 1984 - K.U. Chernenko ( died in March 1985). Obviously, in such a political situation there was no talk of carrying out political-economic and social reforms.

In 1985 There was another change in the leadership of the USSR: M.S. was elected General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee. Gorbachev, Chairman of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR - A.A. Gromyko, Chairman of the Council of Ministers - N.I. Ryzhkov.

In view of the fact that M.S. Gorbachev “got” an economically and politically weak country that required radical reforms, then main task new ruling elite was to stop the collapse of the system of “state socialism” and ensure the interests of its nomenklatura, which formed these politicians and promoted them to the top (and the first part of the task was subordinate to the second, and pretty soon it was discarded). The remedy chosen is careful reform of social structures, primarily the economy. However, there was no coherent and pre-developed concept of how to do this.

At the April (1985) plenum of the CPSU Central Committee it was given general analysis state Soviet society and a strategy was put forward to accelerate the country's economic development. Initially, the policy of perestroika was aimed at accelerating socio-economic development while maintaining existing system management. The first two years of perestroika - 1985-1986 - did not bring significant changes to the position of local Councils of People's Deputies. But there have been certain shifts in the theoretical understanding of the problem of the status of local authorities.

The first timid attempts at reform of the Soviets date back to 1987. By this time, the main directions of change had already become obvious: reform of the electoral system, expansion of openness in the work of the Soviets, their economic and financial independence.

The experiment in electoral reform was timed to coincide with the local council elections in June 1987. 2341 Councils took part in it. The essence of the experiment was the introduction of a multi-command system, despite the fact that the number of candidates could exceed the number of mandates. This experiment did not give any definite results. The expansion of openness in the work of local Soviets also brought more than modest results. The further transformation of local Soviets is caused primarily by drastic changes in political life countries.

By 1987 It became obvious that acceleration as a strategy was not being implemented. After the January (1987) plenum of the CPSU Central Committee, M.S. Gorbachev formulated a new task, broader in scope of society, called “perestroika,” and the term “acceleration” quickly disappeared from the official vocabulary.

A policy of glasnost (limited freedom of speech) begins to be implemented, aimed primarily at criticizing a number of aspects of the functioning of the CPSU and its leaders. Glasnost policy prepared constitutional reform(1988).

Its meaning was to create new supreme bodies of power - the Congress of People's Deputies, elected by popular vote on an alternative basis, and the Supreme Council, elected by deputies of the Congress and operating in the intervals between Congresses. But this does not work out for him, it is proposed to introduce a new post of head of state, and in March 1989. Gorbachev was elected the first President of the USSR.

Already the first alternative elections in 1989. brought changes - the party leaders of a number of large cities, including Moscow and Leningrad, suffered failures. The Soviets were ill-equipped to work in conditions of pluralism and the emerging multi-party system. Deputies wanted to simultaneously pass laws and implement them. The Chairman of the Council had to be torn between work at the session and management of the city economy. Conflicts between different levels of government have become more frequent.

Municipal reform was brewing. The Union authorities were the first to realize the need for a law on municipal self-government. The development of such a law began back in 1988. Paying tribute to the past, local self-government was defined as part of the socialist self-government of the people. But the law also contained a number of important innovations. Local self-government began to be understood only as territorial. A radical measure was the elimination of “double subordination” executive bodies local government, however, this measure had to be abandoned very quickly. The law established communal property as the basis of local economy.

Significant changes also occurred in the union republics. In 1988 - 1989 The republics of Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia made attempts to limit the power of the councils on their territory, and also advocated for their independence. In 1989, Georgia joined them with similar slogans. As a result of the multi-party system formed in the USSR, the Communist Party lost its weight and found itself in the minority in the elections to the Supreme Councils of Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Georgia, and Armenia. In these republics, supporters of national independence gained a majority, who began to take steps to secede from the USSR. But even in the republics where the communists received a majority of votes in the elections, the Supreme Councils, one after another, began to adopt Declarations of National Sovereignty, proclaiming the supremacy of republican laws over union ones.

The so-called “parade of sovereignties” and “war of laws” began in the country. On June 12, 1990, a declaration on the state sovereignty of the RSFSR was adopted (907 deputies were in favor, 13 were against, 9 abstained), on July 16, a declaration on the sovereignty of Ukraine, and on July 27, a declaration on the sovereignty of Belarus. In August, the decision to declare sovereignty was made by the Supreme Council of Armenia, and in October by the Supreme Councils of Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. In June of the same year, at a session of the Supreme Council of the Estonian SSR, a decision was made to stop funding from the republican budget the activities of the KGB and the military registration and enlistment office of the ESSR. In August, a session of the Supreme Council of the Armenian SSR decided to suspend on the territory of the republic the Decree of the President of the Soviet Union “On the prohibition of the creation of armed formations not provided for by the legislation of the USSR, and the seizure of weapons in cases of their illegal storage.”

In September, the Presidium of the Supreme Council of Ukraine, by a special decree, prohibited the sale of agricultural products outside the republic in excess of the established export volumes. At the end of 1990, Russia decided to reduce contributions to the union budget by five times. On July 21, 1990, on the day of the 50th anniversary of the proclamation of Soviet power in Lithuania and Latvia, the Presidium of the Supreme Council of Lithuania published a statement in which July 21 was assessed as “a day of resentment, shame and misfortune.” The Supreme Council of Latvia declared the Seimas declaration of July 21, 1940 “On Latvia’s accession to the USSR” to be invalid from the moment of its adoption.

Sovereignization took place not only in the union republics, but also in the autonomous republics. In the RSFSR, the Tatar, Bashkir, Kalmyk, and Chuvash Autonomous Republics declared their state sovereignty. In Moldova, the Transnistrian Moldavian Soviet Socialist Republic and the Gagauz Republic were proclaimed as part of the renewed USSR.

In the spring of 1990, the Supreme Councils of the Baltic republics adopted declarations of independence. The Soviet Union was on the verge of collapse. The Union authorities, who did not want the expansion of the rights and independence of the republics, tried to stop the processes of sovereignization. However, all attempts have been made by force and ended only in human casualties.

In the spring of 1991, the allied authorities tried to put forceful pressure on the Russian leadership. On the opening day of the Third Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR, troops were brought into Moscow to support the removal of Boris Yeltsin from the post of Chairman of the Supreme Council, which was being prepared at the congress by communist deputies. But this caused exactly the opposite effect. Yeltsin's removal did not take place. Moreover, it was decided to introduce the post of president in the RSFSR. M. Gorbachev was forced to admit his mistake. The troops were withdrawn from the capital. The confrontation between Russian and allied authorities played a crucial role in the fate of the USSR.

Relations between the leadership of Russia and the Union began to deteriorate after Russia adopted a declaration of sovereignty. The intensification of the confrontation between them was also facilitated by different vision further economic and political transformations in the country. The Russian leadership did not hide its desire to transform the economy on a market basis and end the autocracy of the CPSU. Conservatives, who predominated in the union power structures, opposed this. The specificity of this confrontation was that both the liberals, as Boris Yeltsin was called by the Russian authorities, and the conservatives, proceeded from the premise that perestroika had reached a dead end and there was an urgent need to change the course of reforms. Conservatives called for a return to socialist, class values, and liberals - to bourgeois ones. Both of them harshly criticized M. Gorbachev. In order to strengthen the central power and strengthen his own position, Gorbachev took the initiative to introduce the post of President of the USSR. The presidential elections took place on March 15, 1990 at the III Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR. M. Gorbachev became president, as expected. However, the increase in power status could not save him from losing his authority among people. In addition, Gorbachev's election as president at a congress, rather than by popular vote, deprived his post of necessary legitimacy, which seriously doomed his presidency.

As president, M. Gorbachev directed his efforts primarily to preserving the Union, agreeing to some concessions to the republics and signing a new union treaty. Perhaps he had no other choice. According to some estimates, Gorbachev had one chance to preserve himself as an influential political figure - to successfully complete the process of reforming the USSR and conclude a new alliance agreement.

M. Gorbachev sought to preserve the Union as a Federation, leave the center with the greatest possible powers, and sign the Union Treaty as quickly as possible. In mid-November 1990, the President of the USSR, at a meeting of the leaders of the Union republics, proposed an 8-point program to bring the USSR out of the economic and political crisis. Most of the proposals were aimed at strengthening, expanding and concentrating the supreme executive power in the USSR. It was supposed to transform the Federation Council into a permanent body consisting of the leaders of the republics, to reorganize the entire executive power, subordinating it directly to the president. In addition, take emergency measures to strengthen law and order, social protection of certain categories of citizens, etc. The leaders of the republics did not approve of this plan.

M. Gorbachev made another attempt to strengthen the central government at the IV Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR. The Congress gave the President additional powers. In particular, he received the right to directly lead the government and headed the Federation Council and the Security Council of the USSR. The position of vice president was introduced, to which G. Yanaev was appointed.

However, in reality, the central power not only did not strengthen, but weakened day by day. The data on the situation in the country released in April 1991 indicated that no more than 40% of the planned financial revenues from the republics went to the union budget. In this situation, M. Gorbachev decided to appeal to the people. On March 17, 1991, a referendum was held on the preservation of the Soviet Union. The population of 9 union republics took part in it. The majority voted to preserve the renewed Union.

The results of the referendum prompted Gorbachev to intensify the negotiation process on reforming the union state. However, time has already been lost. Some republics, firmly oriented toward secession from the Union, did not take part in the negotiations.

These negotiations, which began in April 1991, were called the Novoogaryovsky process, after the name of the residence of the President of the USSR near Moscow, where they took place. Nine union republics (RSFSR, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan) and the union center as an independent participant in the discussions took part in the Novoogarevo process.

During the negotiations a number of issues were decided controversial issues to stabilize the situation in the country and overcome the crisis. The primary task to overcome the crisis is the conclusion of a new treaty of sovereign states, taking into account the results of the all-Union referendum. During further negotiations, drafts of new documents on the Union of Sovereign Soviet Republics were developed, which envisaged the creation of a de facto confederal state. The rights of the republics expanded significantly. In particular, agreements were reached to establish a system of tax payments so that the republics would transfer a fixed percentage of their income to the center. The leader in the negotiations on the part of the republics was Russia. .

By the summer of 1991, most of the controversial issues had been resolved. The signing of the union treaty was scheduled for August 20.

The signing of the agreement was prevented by the events of August 19-21. In the USSR, several top leaders created the State Committee for a State of Emergency. President M. Gorbachev was removed from power and isolated in his residence in Crimea. The goals of the State Emergency Committee were to restore the Soviet Union to its previous form and curtail the process of change in the country. The August events radically influenced the further development of events and the fate of the Soviet Union.

Collapse of the USSR

August President of the USSR M.S. Gorbachev was isolated at his dacha in Crimea during his vacation. On the night of August 18-19, the State Emergency Committee (GKChP) was created, which included G.I. Yanaev, Chairman of the Government V.S. Pavlov, Minister of Defense D.T. Yazov, KGB Chairman V.A. Kryuchkov, deputy Chairman of the Defense Council O.D. Baklanov, Minister of Internal Affairs B.K. Pugo, Chairman of the Peasant Union of the USSR V.A. Starodubtsev, President of the Association of State Enterprises A.I. Tizyakov. The State Emergency Committee announced the introduction of a state of emergency in certain regions of the country, the dissolution of government structures operating contrary to the 1977 USSR Constitution, suspended the activities of opposition parties and movements, banned rallies and demonstrations, established strict control over the media, and sent troops into Moscow.

On the morning of August 19, an appeal was sent to the citizens of Russia, in which the actions of the State Emergency Committee were assessed as a right-wing, reactionary, anti-constitutional coup, and the State Emergency Committee itself and its decisions were declared illegal. Tens of thousands of Muscovites took up defensive positions around the White House. On August 21, an emergency session of the Supreme Soviet of Russia was convened, supporting the leadership of the republic. On the same day, the leaders authorized by her, headed by Vice-President of the RSFSR A.V., departed for Crimea. Rutsky and Chairman of the Council of Ministers I.S. Silaev, who released M.S. Gorbachev.

Further events developed rapidly. Members of the State Emergency Committee were arrested as state criminals. USSR President M.S. Gorbachev distanced himself from his former associates. And on August 24 M.S. Gorbachev resigned as General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee and announced the self-dissolution of the party. On the same day he signed a decree on liquidation political bodies and party organizations in the Armed Forces.

August, the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR assumed the powers of the USSR Cabinet of Ministers. At the same time B.N. Yeltsin signed a decree banning the activities of the CPSU and the RCP on Russian territory.

After the August events, the Union of Soviet Republics began to quickly disintegrate. On August 26, Ukraine declared its independence and subjugated three military districts: Kiev, Odessa and Carpathian and Black Sea Fleet. On September 2, the V Extraordinary Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR began its work, which invited all willing republics to sign an agreement on a Union of sovereign states on the basis of a confederation.

The positions of the allied authorities and M. Gorbachev were significantly weakened. In fact, Gorbachev found himself in complete dependence from the Russian leadership and was forced to identify with Yeltsin’s actions. In turn, B.M. Yeltsin tried to concentrate power in his own hands. Even during the days of the putsch, he adopted a decree “On the cessation of the activities of the CPSU and the Communist Party of the RSFSR on the territory of Russia.” All union property on the territory of the RSFSR was subordinated to Russia by Yeltsin's decree. On August 25, Gorbachev announced his resignation as General Secretary and the dissolution of the CPSU Central Committee. Appointments to the most important allied posts were made on the direct orders of Yeltsin. So, immediately after the putsch, Gorbachev appointed new KGB chairmen, defense and foreign ministers. B. Yeltsin was categorically against it and named his candidates. Gorbachev was forced to agree.

At the Extraordinary Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR, held on September 2-5, the leaders of 10 union republics proposed that the congress dissolve itself and form inter-republican power structures for a transition period until the conclusion of a new union treaty. The Congress accepted these proposals. Supreme representative body The Supreme Council came into power. Instead of the Cabinet of Ministers, the Inter-Republican Economic Committee was created. Most of the Union ministries were liquidated. In addition, the Council of Heads of State (State Council) was created, which included the President of the USSR and the leaders of the republics.

The first act of the State Council was the recognition of the independence of the Baltic states. The State Council also had to develop a draft Union Treaty. Gorbachev and Yeltsin took over the development itself. M. Gorbachev showed the greatest interest in creating a new Union. Along with the agreement, he suggested that the republics sign an Economic Agreement so as not to “lose” republics that are not ready to join the Union. B. Yeltsin presented his version of the agreement, which, according to M. Gorbachev, assumed the formation of a community like the SES, but with even more weakened functions of the central bodies. Gorbachev and other republican leaders opposed this option, and it was decided to resume work on the basis of the August draft.

M. Gorbachev most places the blame for the failure of the negotiations on Yeltsin, saying that he “played the most destructive role, sought to seize as much power as possible, was inclined towards the idea of ​​isolating himself from other republics, etc.” In this situation, Ukraine played an important role. On August 24, the Ukrainian Supreme Council proclaimed the independence of the republic and scheduled a referendum for December 1, 1991 to approve this decision, and elections for the President of Ukraine. Due to this circumstance, the leader of Ukraine L. Kravchuk refuses to sign any new versions of the union treaty until the results of the December referendum. Gorbachev further notes that “the strongest supporters of the Union were the leaders of the Central Asian republics and especially the President of Kazakhstan N. Nazarbayev.” But they did not show persistence, giving the initiative to Yeltsin, expecting certainty in Ukraine’s position. The Novoogaryovsky process continued, but there were no results.

The last meeting of the State Council took place on November 25. At it, B. Yeltsin demanded to replace the formula “Union State” with “Union of States” and announced his refusal to sign the text until it was considered by the Supreme Council of Russia. Other Republican leaders also demanded increasing independence from the center. Everyone wanted to raise their status and become equal members of the UN. M. Gorbachev tried to convince them to continue their work and finally sign an agreement. But he could no longer do anything “with the leaders of the union republics who had felt the taste of freedom.”

In the end, no one signed the developed compromise option. In essence, this was a verdict on the Novoogaryovsk document. Still, M. Gorbachev did not lose hope. At a press conference on November 25, he stated that “the agreement will be signed soon,” and on November 27, the draft agreement was published in the press.

According to the project, new union state- Union of Sovereign States - announced confederal state, successor to the USSR. The republics included in the Union had the status of sovereign states, retaining “the right to resolve all issues of their development”, “independently determining their national-state and administrative-territorial structure, the system of authorities and management”, being subjects of international law, preserving the right to freely secede from the Union.

The bodies of the Union were: bicameral parliament- The Supreme Council of the Union, which has the right to issue all-Union laws, adopt the Union budget, and resolve issues of war and peace; The President of the Union, acting as a guarantor of compliance with the Treaty, representing the Union in relations with foreign countries, and also being the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Union; State Council of the Union, created to “harmonize the most important issues domestic and foreign policy affecting the common interests of the states parties to the Treaty", consisting of the President of the Union and senior officials of the member states; the Government of the Union, subordinate to the President and responsible to the parliament, formed by the President in agreement with upper house parliament - the Council of Republics; Supreme and Supreme Arbitration Courts of the Union.

The treaty provided for a unified Armed Forces with centralized control, but the states included in the Union had the right to create their own armed forces, the functions and strength of which were determined by a special agreement.

The delimitation of powers and jurisdiction of the central and republican authorities was discussed in the draft itself. general view. It was stated that the participating states form a single economic and political space. Areas of joint jurisdiction were established, under which relevant multilateral treaties and agreements were to be concluded: on the economic community; on joint defense and collective security; on the coordination of foreign policy; on the coordination of general scientific, technical, environmental programs; on the protection of human rights and national minorities; in the field of energy, transport, communications, space; on cooperation in the field of education and culture; about fighting crime. The powers of the union bodies were determined by the republican ones. In the future, it was planned to develop procedures for the approval of decisions and their implementation. The Union Budget was also developed through a special agreement.

An analysis of this draft union treaty allows us to conclude that the republics were endowed with broad powers and had the opportunity to obtain additional rights and powers through special agreements with the center. At the same time, the republics had a minimum of obligations to the Union. It is obvious that the desire of the republican leaders to gain full state power played a decisive role in their reluctance to sign the agreement.

The question of the Union was finally decided by a referendum in Ukraine. The majority of the republic's residents who took part in the voting were in favor of independence. Having declared its independence, Ukraine subjugated three military districts: the Kiev, Odessa and Carpathian and Black Sea fleets. At the same time, L. Kravchuk was elected president, and, based on the results of the referendum, refused to sign the union treaty. B. Yeltsin immediately declared Russia's recognition of Ukraine's independence.

After which, on September 2, the V Extraordinary Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR began its work, which invited all willing republics to sign an agreement on a Union of sovereign states on the basis of a confederation. And on September 6, the independence of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia was recognized, and on September 9, the Chechen Republic declared independence. During September-October, the remaining union republics declared independence.

In December 1991, the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus met in Minsk and announced the termination of the 1922 Union Treaty and their intention to create the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). These agreements were supported by the leaders of other republics that were part of the USSR. The CIS united 11 former Soviet republics (excluding Georgia and the Baltic states). The Supreme Councils of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus ratified the agreements adopted by the heads of state. Of the two hundred and fifty deputies of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR, seven voted against the ratification of the Belovezhskaya Accords: S.N. Baburin, V.A. Balala, V.B. Isakov, P.A. Lysov, I.V. Konstantinov, N.A. Pavlov, S.A. Polozkov.

The collapse of the USSR took place against the backdrop of a general economic, foreign policy and demographic crisis. In 1989, the beginning of the economic crisis in the USSR was officially announced for the first time (economic growth was replaced by decline). In the period 1989 - 1991. the main problem of the Soviet economy reaches its maximum - chronic commodity shortages; Almost all basic goods, except bread, disappear from free sale. Rationed supplies in the form of coupons are being introduced throughout the country. Since 1991, a demographic crisis (an excess of mortality over the birth rate) has been recorded for the first time. Refusal to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries entails the massive collapse of pro-Soviet communist regimes in Eastern Europe in 1989. In Poland, former leader of the Solidarity trade union Lech Walesa comes to power (December 9, 1990), in Czechoslovakia - former dissident Vaclav Havel (December 29, 1989). In Romania, unlike other countries of Eastern Europe, the communists were removed by force, and the dictator-president Ceausescu and his wife were shot by a tribunal.

Thus, there is a virtual collapse of the Soviet sphere of influence. A number of interethnic conflicts are flaring up on the territory of the USSR. The first manifestation of tension during the Perestroika period was the events in Kazakhstan. On December 16, 1986, a protest demonstration took place in Alma-Ata after Moscow tried to impose its protégé V.G. on the post of First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the KazSSR. Kolbin, who had previously worked as the first secretary of the Ulyanovsk Regional Committee of the CPSU and had nothing to do with Kazakhstan. This demonstration was suppressed internal troops. Some of its participants “disappeared” or were imprisoned. These events are known as "Zheltoksan". The most acute crisis was the one that began in 1988. Karabakh conflict. Mutual ethnic cleansing is taking place, and in Azerbaijan this was accompanied by mass pogroms. In 1989, the Supreme Council of the Armenian SSR announced the annexation of Nagorno-Karabakh, and the Azerbaijan SSR began a blockade. In April 1991, between two Soviet republics the war actually begins.

In 1990, unrest occurred in the Fergana Valley, a feature of which was the mixing of several Central Asian nationalities (Osh massacre). The decision to rehabilitate peoples deported by Stalin leads to increased tension in a number of regions, in particular in Crimea, between those who returned Crimean Tatars and Russians, in the Prigorodny region of North Ossetia - between Ossetians and returning Ingush. Against the background of the general crisis, the popularity of radical democrats led by Boris Yeltsin is growing; it reaches a maximum in the two largest cities - Moscow and Leningrad.

Thus, the crisis of the socialist camp, as well as the political calculations and ambitions of the leaders of the republics, did not allow reaching agreement common interests within the framework of a weakened Union. All this irreversibly led to the collapse of the USSR and the fragmentation of a superpower into independent states.

3. Formation of the commonwealth independent states

Initially, the CIS member countries did not show activity or desire for cooperation, for bringing their economies closer together within the framework of the commonwealth. According to E.M. Primakov, “the formation of the CIS was dictated rather by the desire to dull the severity of the negative internal reaction, the external one was basically the opposite - to the collapse of the great state.”

In the early 1990s in Russia, a significant part political elite the conviction arose that other union republics lived at the expense of the RSFSR, and were and are a brake on its development. Therefore, the optimal policy for Russia was considered to be a policy of distancing itself from them and at the same time drawing closer to its more Western partners.

Since 1996, there has been a change in the concept of foreign policy activities of the Russian Federation. The new Minister of Foreign Affairs, E. Primakov, stated that “relations with the CIS countries are the main priority of Russia’s foreign policy.”

The vital Russian interests on the territory of the entire former USSR included: establishing economic and transport links on a new basis; conflict resolution and achieving stability on Russian borders, defense of the external borders of the CIS; harmonization foreign policy courses; creation of one military-strategic space; creation of a unified information space; protection of the rights of ethnic Russians.

Integration within the post-Soviet space was seen as a tool for increasing the significance of Russia's foreign policy potential in the international arena.

The objective basis for the integration of the former republics of the USSR are socio-economic factors and the commonality of traditional long-term cooperative ties. Having found themselves in different countries after 1991, fenced off by political, currency and other barriers, enterprises still need close contacts today. The breakdown of stable economic ties between the former Soviet republics at the first stage of Russian reforms (1992-93) was “the reason for the fall in Russia’s gross domestic product by about half, another quarter of this fall was due to the severance of ties with the former CMEA countries, and only the remaining quarter was in fact, a consequence of the ongoing reforms."

Russia continues to provide free subsidies to CIS countries. The size of this assistance is measured in billions and tens of billions of US dollars. Calculations by the Ministry of Economy and State Statistics Committee show that the ratio of prices for agricultural raw materials and food products imported into Russia and energy resources exported from Russia is extremely unfavorable for it.

An integration factor is also “the need to ensure defense security. Russia itself can produce only about 18% of the systems modern weapons, everything else - only in cooperation with the CIS countries. Any prospects for the development of the defense industry both in Russia and in the CIS countries are associated with the development of a unified defense policy."

The sociocultural factor of the unification of the CIS countries is the “civilized unity” of the population, the similarity of the social structure, the degree of education, common historical experience and traditions. After the collapse of the USSR, 25 million Russians remained in the CIS. The difficult socio-economic and political situation in these countries leads to the emigration of a significant part of Russians to their historical homeland.

As we can see, the CIS countries and, in particular, the Russian Federation had enough reasons for unification. It is no coincidence that since the creation of the Commonwealth, the participating countries have signed many treaties and agreements aimed at maintaining unity.

A particularly active and effective policy in this area began to be pursued by Russia, which is the core of integration processes, and other CIS countries since the mid-90s.

Conclusion

As a result of the work done, the main events and directions of the USSR's foreign policy in the period from 1985 to 1991 were identified.

The development of Soviet society in the second half of the 80s is firmly linked to the concept of “perestroika”. This concept denoted a revolution, first in the consciousness of citizens, and then in the economic and, ultimately, in the entire domestic and foreign policy of the USSR. As a result, “perestroika” turned into a symbol of deep renewal and at the same time a change in the entire socialist system and its position in the world.

The key and most decisive step in the USSR's foreign policy was the concept of new political thinking, which made it possible to end the Cold War.

This concept assumed that since a nuclear war would be a catastrophe for all humanity, the threat of using nuclear weapons, as well as the possession of them, ceased to serve the achievement of reasonable political goals. The highest value of the new political thinking was to ensure the survival of humanity, which was threatened by the unresolved number of problems, from the nuclear threat to the deterioration of the environment. Considering that these problems could only be solved by the joint efforts of the leading countries of the world, the main goal of the policy was to ensure their cooperation. In addition, interaction based on trust required a rejection of the logic and ideology of confrontation. New thinking assumed finding a balance of interests based on mutual concessions and strict adherence to international legal norms.

List of sources used

1.Amelina V.V. History of the domestic state and law: Textbook / V.V. Amelina, R.V. Kuternina. - Novosibirsk: SibAGS Publishing House, 2014. - 180 p. -

2. Ligachev E.K. Who betrayed the USSR? / E.K. Ligachev. - Moscow: Algorithm: Eksmo, 2011. - 285 p. - ISBN 978-5-699-37495-3.

3. Lobanov D.V. Seven samurai of the USSR. They fought for their homeland! / D.V. Lobanov. - Moscow: Book World, 2012. - 240 p. - ISBN 978-5-8041-0504-5.

4. Shinyavkin A.P. How the USSR was killed. The greatest geopolitical catastrophe / A.P. Shinyavkin. - Moscow: Yauza Publishing House, Eksmo, 2011. - 480 p. - ISBN 987-5-699-46222-3.

5. Munchaev Sh.M. Political history of Russia. From the formation of the Russian centralized state to beginning of the XXI: Textbook / Sh.M. Munchaev. - 3rd ed., revision. - Moscow: Legal Norm: SIC INFRA-M, 2016. - 384 p. - ISBN 987-5-91768-686-8.

6. History of public administration in Russia: textbook for bachelors / Ed. A.N. Markova, Yu.K. Fedulova. - 3rd ed., revised. and additional - Moscow: UNITY-DANA, 2012. - 319 p. - ISBN 978-5-238-01218-6.

7. Vdovin A.I. Reasons for the collapse of the Soviet Union in Russian scientific and journalistic literature // electronic magazine RUSSKIE.ORG, November 2011.

Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) - a regional international organization (international treaty) designed to regulate cooperative relations between countries that were previously part of the USSR. The CIS is not a supranational entity and operates on a voluntary basis.

Creation of an organization

The CIS was founded by the heads of the BSSR, RSFSR and Ukrainian SSR by signing on December 8, 1991 in Viskuli (Belovezhskaya Pushcha) near Brest (Belarus) the “Agreement on the Creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States” (known in the media as the Belovezhskaya Agreement).

The document, which consisted of a Preamble and 14 articles, stated that the USSR ceased to exist as a subject of international law and geopolitical reality. However, based on the historical community of peoples, the ties between them, taking into account bilateral treaties, the desire for a democratic rule of law, the intention to develop their relations on the basis of mutual recognition and respect for state sovereignty, the parties agreed on the formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States.

Already on December 10, the agreement was ratified by the Supreme Councils of Belarus and Ukraine, and on December 12 - by the Supreme Council of Russia. The Russian parliament ratified the document with an overwhelming majority of votes: “for” - 188 votes, “against” - 6 votes, “abstained” - 7. On December 13, a meeting of the presidents of five Central Asian states that were part of the USSR took place in the city of Ashgabat: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan , Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan. The result was a Statement in which countries agreed to join the organization, but subject to ensuring equal participation of subjects former Union and recognition of all CIS states as founders. Subsequently, the President of Kazakhstan N. Nazarbayev proposed to gather in Almaty to discuss issues and make joint decisions.

The heads of 11 former union republics took part in the meeting, organized specifically for these purposes: Azerbaijan, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Ukraine (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Georgia were absent from the former union republics) . The result was the signing of the Alma-Ata Declaration on December 21, 1991, which set out the goals and principles of the CIS. It established the provision that the interaction of the organization’s participants “will be carried out on the principle of equality through coordinating institutions, formed on a parity basis and operating in the manner determined by agreements between the participants of the Commonwealth, which is neither a state nor a supranational entity.” The unified command of military-strategic forces and unified control over nuclear weapons were also preserved, the parties’ respect for the desire to achieve the status of a nuclear-free and (or) neutral state, and a commitment to cooperation in the formation and development of a common economic space were recorded. The fact that the USSR ceased to exist with the formation of the CIS was stated.

The Alma-Ata meeting was an important milestone in state building in the post-Soviet space, as it completed the process of transforming the former USSR republics into sovereign states (SSS). The last states to ratify the Alma-Ata Declaration were Azerbaijan (September 24, 1993) and Moldova (April 8, 1994), which had previously been associate members of the organization. In 1993, Georgia became a full member of the CIS.

The first years of the organization's existence were largely devoted to organizational issues. At the first meeting of the CIS heads of state, which took place on December 30, 1991 in Minsk, a “Temporary Agreement on the Council of Heads of State and the Council of Heads of Government of the Commonwealth of Independent States” was signed, which established the highest body of the organization, the Council of Heads of State. In it, each state has one vote, and decisions are made based on consensus. In addition, the “Agreement of the Council of Heads of State of the Commonwealth of Independent States on the Armed Forces and Border Troops” was signed, according to which the participating states confirmed their legal right to create their own Armed Forces.

The organizational stage ended in 1993, when on January 22, in Minsk, the “Charter of the Commonwealth of Independent States”, the fundamental document of the organization, was adopted. March 15, 1996 The State Duma The Russian Federation adopted Resolution No. 157-II of the State Duma “On the legal force for the Russian Federation - Russia of the results of the USSR referendum on March 17, 1991 on the issue of preserving USSR"; paragraph 3 read: “Confirm that the Agreement on the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States of December 8, 1991, signed by the President of the RSFSR B. N. Yeltsin and Secretary of State RSFSR G. E. Burbulis and not approved by the Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR - the highest body of state power of the RSFSR - did not and does not have legal force insofar as it relates to the termination of the existence of the USSR."

Largest cities CIS - Moscow, St. Petersburg, Tashkent, Kyiv, Baku, Minsk, Alma-Ata.

Member states of the organization

According to the current Charter of the Commonwealth of Independent States founding states organizations are those states that, by the time the Charter was adopted, had signed and ratified the Agreement on the Creation of the CIS of December 8, 1991 and the Protocol to this Agreement of December 21, 1991. Member States The Commonwealth is those founding states that assumed the obligations arising from the Charter within 1 year after its adoption by the Council of Heads of State.

To join the organization, a potential member must share the goals and principles of the CIS, accepting the obligations contained in the Charter, and also obtain the consent of all member states. In addition, the Charter provides for categories associate members(these are the states participating in certain types activities of the organization, on the terms determined by the agreement on associated membership) and observers(these are states whose representatives may attend meetings of Commonwealth bodies by decision of the Council of Heads of State).

The current Charter regulates the procedure for the withdrawal of a member state from the Commonwealth. To do this, the Member State must notify the depositary of the Statute in writing 12 months before withdrawal. At the same time, the state is obliged to fully fulfill the obligations that arose during the period of participation in the Charter.

State			Ratification date CIS Charter
	not signed
	not signed
	not signed
	not signed		not signed
			not signed
	not signed

• Turkmenistan: At the Kazan CIS summit held on August 26, 2005, Turkmenistan announced that it would participate in the organization as "associate member".
• Ukraine: Ukraine has not ratified the CIS Charter, therefore de jure it is not a member state of the CIS, referring to the founding states and participating states of the Commonwealth.
• Georgia: On December 3, 1993, Georgia ratified the Protocol to the Agreement on the Establishment of the CIS, and on April 19, 1994, the CIS Charter. On August 12, 2008, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili announced his desire for the state to withdraw from the CIS; on August 14, 2008, the Georgian parliament made a unanimous (117 votes) decision on Georgia’s withdrawal from the organization. According to the CIS Charter (Article 9, Section I), a member state has the right to withdraw from the Commonwealth. It notifies the depositary of this Charter of such intention in writing 12 months before withdrawal. At the same time, the obligations that arose during the period of participation in this Charter bind the relevant states until they are fully implemented. On October 9, 2008, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced that the Council of Foreign Ministers of the CIS countries made a formal decision to terminate Georgia’s membership in the Commonwealth from August 2009 On August 18, 2009, Georgia officially left the CIS.
• Mongolia participates in some CIS structures as an observer
• Afghanistan declared its desire to join the CIS in 2008 and is an observer in the Inter-Parliamentary Assembly.

IN different years The authorities of a number of unrecognized states, autonomous regions, as well as UN member states declared their intention to enter the CIS. Such declarations have so far had no practical continuation. Statements by self-proclaimed state entities, in all likelihood, should be considered as an element of the struggle of these state entities to gain independence, since there is no talk about the real possibility of such a step. According to the CIS Charter, the acceptance of a new member of this organization with independent status requires the consent of existing participants, which would actually mean encouraging separatism on the territory of partner states and could lead to unpredictable consequences. The following declarations were made:

• December 1991 and August 1992 (parliament), January 1996, May 2006, September 2008 - President of the Republic of Abkhazia,
• August 1993 - NKR Parliament
• December 1991, May 1992, January 1993 (parliament), January 1994 and May 2006 - President of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic
• December 1996 (president), July 1998 - parliament and president Chechen Republic Ichkeria
• December 26, 1991 - Tatarstan (“Declaration on the entry of the Republic of Tatarstan into the CIS”)
• December 1991 and May 1992 (parliament), March 1994 - President of the Republic of Crimea (Crimea, as part of Ukraine, is already an observer in the CIS)
• February 1995 - President of the Republic of Serbian Krajina in Croatia
• April 11, 1999 - President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

Organizational goals

The CIS is based on the principles of sovereign equality of all its members, therefore all member states are independent subjects of international law. The Commonwealth is not a state and does not have supranational powers.

The main goals of the organization are:

• cooperation in political, economic, environmental, humanitarian, cultural and other fields;
• comprehensive development of the member states within the framework of a common economic space, interstate cooperation and integration;
• ensuring human rights and freedoms;
• cooperation in ensuring international peace and security, achieving general and complete disarmament;
• mutual legal assistance;
• peaceful resolution of disputes and conflicts between states of the organization.

Areas of joint activities of member states include:

• ensuring human rights and fundamental freedoms;
• coordination of foreign policy activities;
• cooperation in the formation and development of a common economic space and customs policy;
• cooperation in the development of transport and communication systems;
• health and environmental protection;
• issues of social and migration policy;
• fight against organized crime;
• cooperation in the field of defense policy and protection of external borders.

CIS bodies

The highest body of the organization is the Council of Heads of State of the CIS, in which all member states are represented and which discusses and resolves fundamental issues related to the activities of the organization. The Council of Heads of State meets twice a year. The Council of Heads of Government of the CIS coordinates cooperation between the executive authorities of the member states in economic, social and other areas of common interests. Meets four times a year. All decisions, both in the Council of Heads of State and in the Council of Heads of Government, are made on the basis of consensus. The heads of these two CIS bodies preside alternately in the order of the Russian alphabet of the names of the member states of the Commonwealth.

• Kuchma, Leonid Danilovich
• Putin Vladimir Vladimirovich
• Medvedev, Dmitry Anatolyevich (2010)

The permanent body of the CIS is the CIS Executive Committee in Minsk (Belarus).

• Vladimir Putin.

• Sergey Lavrov

CIS Executive Secretaries

The position of executive secretary was introduced in 1993:

Other CIS bodies

• Council of Foreign Ministers of the CIS
• Council of CIS Defense Ministers
• Council of Ministers of Internal Affairs of the CIS Member States
• Council of the United Armed Forces of the CIS
• Council of Commanders of the CIS Border Troops
• Council of Heads of Security Agencies and special services CIS member states
• Interstate Economic Council of the CIS
• Economic Court
• CIS Statistical Committee
• Financial and Banking Council of the CIS
• Anti-Terrorism Center of the CIS Member States
• Human Rights Commission, etc.
• CIS Coordination and Advisory Committee
• CIS Executive Committee
• Interstate Economic Committee of the CIS
• Economic Council of the CIS
• Interstate Bank

Alternative integration forms

The CIS as an international organization has too few “points of contact” between its members. This forces the leaders of the Commonwealth countries to look for alternative integration options. Several organizations with more specific common goals and problems have formed in the CIS space:

• The Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), which includes Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan.
• - The task of the CSTO is to coordinate and unite efforts in the fight against international terrorism and extremism, trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. Thanks to this organization, created on October 7, 2002, Russia maintains its military presence in Central Asia.
• Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC) - Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan
• - Priority areas of activity are increasing trade turnover between participating countries, integration in the financial sector, unification of customs and tax laws. The EurAsEC began in 1992 with the Customs Union, formed to reduce customs barriers. In 2000, the Customs Union grew into a community of five CIS countries, in which Moldova and Ukraine have observer status.
• Central Asian Cooperation (CAC) - Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Russia (since 2004). On October 6, 2005, at the CAC summit, a decision was made, in connection with the upcoming entry of Uzbekistan into the EurAsEC, to prepare documents for the creation of a united organization of the CAC-EurAsEC - that is, in fact, it was decided to abolish the CAC.
• Shanghai organization cooperation (SCO) - Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, China
• Common Economic Space (SES) - Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia, Ukraine
• - An agreement on the prospect of creating a Common Economic Space, in which there will be no customs barriers, and tariffs and taxes will be uniform, was reached on February 23, 2003, but the creation was postponed until 2005. (For the attitude of the new leadership of Ukraine to participation in this union of states, see Foreign policy Ukraine).
• Union state of Russia and Belarus.

In all of these organizations, Russia actually acts as a leading force (only in the SCO does it share this role with China).

Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova are members of GUAM, an organization created in October 1997 and named after the first letters of the names of its members.

On December 2, 2005, the creation of the Commonwealth of Democratic Choice (CDC) was announced, which included Ukraine, Moldova, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Romania, Macedonia, Slovenia and Georgia. The initiators of the creation of the Community were Viktor Yushchenko and Mikheil Saakashvili. The declaration of the establishment of the community states: “Participants will support the development of democratic processes and the creation of democratic institutions, exchange experiences in strengthening democracy and respect for human rights, and coordinate efforts to support new and emerging democratic societies.”

CIS - military organizations

At the September (2004) CIS summit in Astana (Kazakhstan), a decision was made to reform the CIS structures - in particular, to create a CIS Security Council to combat terrorism.

Currently, there are two parallel collective military structures within the CIS.

One of them is the Council of Defense Ministers of the CIS, created in 1992 to develop a unified military policy. Under it there is a permanent secretariat and the Headquarters for the Coordination of Military Cooperation of the CIS (SHKVS).

The second is the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). Within the framework of the CSTO, collective rapid deployment forces have been created consisting of several battalions of mobile troops, a helicopter squadron, and army aviation.

In 2002-2004, cooperation in the military field developed mainly within the framework of the CSTO. The CSTO regularly conducts joint exercises.

One of the defense structures is the CIS Joint Air Defense System. In 2005, within the CIS, allocations for air defense in the amount of 2.3 billion rubles were approved. against 800 million rubles. in 2004.

Commander-in-Chief of the United Armed Forces of the CIS

• Shaposhnikov, Evgeny Ivanovich (1992-1993)

Chief of the General Staff of the United Armed Forces of the CIS - First Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the United Armed Forces of the CIS

• Samsonov, Viktor Nikolaevich (1992-1993)

Chiefs of Staff for Coordination of Military Cooperation among CIS Member States

1. Samsonov, Viktor Nikolaevich (1993-1997)
2. Prudnikov, Viktor Alekseevich (1997-2001)
3. Yakovlev, Vladimir Nikolaevich (2001-2006)

Secretaries of the Council of Defense Ministers of the CIS member states

1. Ivashov, Leonid Grigorievich (1992-1996)
2. Volkov, Vasily Petrovich (1996-1999)
3. Sinaisky, Alexander Sergeevich (since 1999)

Russia and CIS

In July 2004, at a meeting of the Security Council of the Russian Federation dedicated to Russia’s policy in the CIS, Vladimir Putin, who was then president, admitted: “We have reached a certain milestone in the development of the CIS. Either we will achieve a qualitative strengthening of the CIS, create on its basis a really working, globally influential regional structure, or we will inevitably face the “erosion” of this geopolitical space and, as a consequence, a final decline in interest in working in the Commonwealth among its member states.”

In March 2005, after the Russian leadership suffered whole line tangible political failures in relations with the former republics of the USSR (Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova), and in the midst of the power crisis in Kyrgyzstan, Vladimir Putin spoke more categorically: “All disappointments come from an excess of expectations... If anyone expected any then, naturally, there were no special achievements in the economy, politics or the military sphere, since it could not have happened. The goals were programmed the same, but in reality the process after the collapse of the USSR took place differently...” As Putin put it, the CIS was created for a “civilized divorce” of post-Soviet countries, and everything else is “political fluff and chatter.” The real integration tools, in his opinion, are now such associations as the EurAsEC and the newly created Common Economic Space (CES). As for the CIS, it, according to Putin, plays the role of “a very useful club for identifying the views of state leaders on existing problems of a humanitarian and economic nature.”

In connection with the increase in centrifugal processes in the CIS, in recent years the question of the need for its reform has been repeatedly raised. At the same time, there is no consensus on the possible directions of this process. In July 2006, at an informal summit of heads of state of the Commonwealth, President of Kazakhstan Nursultan Nazarbayev proposed his own option - he believes that the CIS should focus on the following areas of cooperation:

• coordinated migration policy;
• development of unified transport communications;
• interaction in scientific, educational, cultural and humanitarian spheres;
• cooperation in the fight against cross-border crime.

As some media noted, in 2006, skepticism regarding the viability and effectiveness of the CIS was also associated with trade wars between Russia, on the one hand, and Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, on the other, but especially with the sharp deterioration of relations between Russia and Georgia . Recent events, according to some observers, have put the CIS on the brink of survival, since Russian sanctions against a country that is part of the CIS turned out to be unprecedented.

In addition, as many observers note, by the end of 2005, Russia’s policy towards the CIS states (and post-Soviet states in general) began to be “shaped” by the Russian gas monopoly Gazprom. Prices for supplied natural gas have become an effective tool for rewarding and punishing CIS states depending on their policy towards Russia:

• In July 2005, it was announced that gas prices for the Baltic states would gradually increase to the pan-European level of $120-125. In 2005, the price of 1 thousand m³ of gas was $92-94 for Latvia, $85 for Lithuania, $90 for Estonia.
• In September 2005, it was announced that the gas price for Georgia would increase in 2006 from $62.5 to $110. For 2007, Gazprom is offering gas to Georgia for $235.
• In November 2005, it was announced that prices for Armenia would increase to $110 (the contract for 2005 provided for the supply of 1.7 billion m³ at $54). The leadership of Armenia, a strategic ally of Russia in the Transcaucasus, expressed concern that the republic would not be able to afford to buy gas at such a price. Russia offered to provide Armenia with an interest-free loan to compensate for increased gas prices. As an alternative solution, it was proposed to transfer into Russian ownership one of the power units of the Hrazdan Thermal Power Plant and the entire gas transportation system of the republic. Despite warnings from the Armenian side that such steps could have Negative consequences for Armenian-Russian relations, it was only possible to achieve a postponement of the price increase until April 1, 2006.
• In November 2005, it was announced that prices for Moldova would increase in 2006 to $160. In 2005, Gazprom supplied gas to Moldova at $80 per 1 thousand m³. Price increase agreed for 2007 Russian gas already up to $170.
• In December 2005, Gazprom and Azerbaijan agreed to switch to paying for gas supplies and transit at market prices. In 2006, Azerbaijan received Gazprom gas at $110 per thousand cubic meters (in 2005 - $60). In 2007, Gazprom wants to supply gas at $235.
• In December 2005, a conflict broke out regarding gas prices for 2006 for Ukraine. Russia demanded from January 1, 2006 to increase the price from $50 per 1 thousand m³ to $160, and then, since the negotiations did not lead to any results, to $230. The agreement on gas supplies in 2006 (at a price of $95) was signed only on January 4, 2006 (see the article Foreign Economic Policy of Ukraine).
• In this regard, Belarus can be considered to occupy a privileged position. In March 2005, an increase in gas tariffs for Belarus was announced, but on April 4, Vladimir Putin promised to keep selling prices at the same level, and on December 19, a final agreement was reached on the supply of 21 billion m³ of gas to Belarus in 2006 at 46.68 $ per 1 thousand m³ (that is, the price has remained unchanged from previous years). Immediately after the presidential elections in Belarus, he again announced his intention to increase the price of gas. After a lengthy showdown, the price for 2007-2011 was set at $100/thousand. m³.

After Russia switched to market prices for gas supplied to its CIS partners, the Commonwealth lost one of the unifying factors - low prices for gas and oil. At the same time, throughout 2006, the Russian leadership made efforts to form, on the basis of the CIS, a kind of union of states connected by a system of oil and gas pipelines and recognizing the leading and key role Russia as a monopoly supplier of energy resources to Europe from all over the post-Soviet space. Neighboring states in this structure should play the role of either suppliers of their gas to Russian pipelines (Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan) or transit countries (Ukraine, Belarus). The key to an energy union was to be the sale or exchange of energy and energy transportation assets. Thus, an agreement was reached with Turkmenistan on the export of its gas through Gazprom. In Uzbekistan Russian companies develop local energy deposits. In Armenia, Gazprom acquired ownership of the main gas pipeline from Iran. An agreement was reached with Moldova that Moldovgaz, 50% of which belongs to Gazprom, will carry out an additional issue of shares, which Moldova will pay for by contributing gas distribution networks to the company, and Gazprom - cash.

Interparliamentary Assembly of the CIS

The IPA includes members of the parliaments of the CIS member countries - Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Armenia (since 1995), Azerbaijan, Moldova, Georgia (since 1997), Ukraine (since 1999).

Parties represented: United Russia, Just Russia, Communist Party of the Russian Federation, Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, Rodina, People's Bloc of Litvin, Party of Regions, Communist Party of Ukraine, Batkivshchyna, Nur-Otan, United Azerbaijan, People's Party of Armenia, Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova , Party of Regions, Our Ukraine, LDPU, NDP, Adalet.

The Chairman of the Assembly is Sergei Mironov, Chairman of the Federation Council of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation. Place of residence - St. Petersburg.

Criticism

• IN modern history The CIS member countries have more than once experienced conflicts and even open military clashes, both intrastate and interstate (see Hot spots in the post-Soviet space). The problem of xenophobia and intolerance on ethnic grounds, as well as the problem of illegal immigration, is still far from being resolved. Economic conflicts are common, for example between Belarus and Russia, Ukraine and Russia over commodity tariffs. Russia, as the largest member of the CIS and with the highest military and economic potential, has been repeatedly accused of violating the fundamental agreement on the CIS - ignorance of intelligence activities within the CIS.
• From the point of view of geopolitics, the CIS does not formally aim at any return to the past, when all modern sovereign states were part of first the Russian Empire and later the USSR, but in reality the official authorities of Russia, both in their own speeches and through the media, very often voices criticism of the authorities of other participating countries. Most often they are credited with disrespect for the common past with Russia, actions under the dictation of developed Western countries (primarily the United States), and revanchist sentiments (presenting the events of the Second World War in a light contrary to the official Soviet, Russian and generally accepted world historiography).