Revolutionary moods in a number of countries are increasingly leading to irreparable changes, as a result of which the geopolitical map of the world is changing. Residents of the Russian Federation consider the revolution one of the cardinal and frightening changes that may affect the state in the near future. The prerequisites for riots and the possibility of a change of power are most often manifested in the economic and political planes. However, the changes achieved as a result of such events are most often negative and further reduce the level of security and quality of life.
Will there be a revolution in Russia in 2019 and a change of power, what changes in the political life of the country can lead to, and what experts say about it - these and other questions have become the most relevant among the people in recent years. Genuine interest in the political life of the country is directly related to the actions of the authorities and the increase in economic problems. Dissatisfaction with the work of the government, a lack of understanding of actions related to domestic and foreign policy, as well as a decrease in living standards and increased pressure from Western "partners" affect the mood of the population and has a more negative connotation.
Many Russians admit that economic stability and confidence in the future have declined markedly over the past year, which is causing some unrest among the people. The revolutionary mood is intensifying, and not without the "help" of the aggressive policy of European and Western countries. Despite this, most experts are sure that in 2019, the inhabitants of Russia should not be afraid of such drastic changes as the displacement of the current government through a revolution.
Possible scenarios for revolutionary action
It is quite difficult to predict the future fate of a huge state that has a special look at any ongoing events in the world. However, experts can name the scenarios that can be used if suddenly a revolution in the Russian Federation does happen.
- The most likely is a riot - mass discontent of citizens in the form of active actions and radical disobedience to the authorities. The most active categories of civil society take part in the protests, more often these are students and workers.
- The other most likely scenario for Russia is a popular referendum, resulting in a voluntary surrender of power. This option is widely used in democratic countries where the principle of democracy operates.
Prerequisites and risks
The majority of the population of the Russian Federation does not see the revolution as an optimal way out of the most difficult situations. All radical methods of solving economic problems are considered by the inhabitants of the country as negative and without prospects. Despite this, many experts believe that such a development of the current situation is quite possible and has enough prerequisites. According to the opinion and forecasts of experts, there are several reasons why a revolution and a revolt against the current government is possible in Russia.
Some of the main ones are: corruption of the state apparatus, too large a gap between the incomes of different segments of the population and a protracted economic crisis. The sharp depreciation of the national currency and the fall in real incomes of the country's residents against the backdrop of the inaction of the governing structures lead to the fact that the people's dissatisfaction with the existing government is growing.
The first signals that a revolutionary mood was brewing in Russia appeared in the wake of the economic crisis of 2014-2015. During that period, the general standard of living of the population dropped significantly, significantly reducing the average income of citizens. However, according to reports from the government and other authorities, there were no preconditions for concern and deterioration in the well-being of Russians. However, in reality, the population felt a sharp decline in the economy, which was reflected primarily in a decrease in wages and an increase in unemployment.
In subsequent years, the situation only worsened, and many experts have already seriously started talking about the fact that by 2019 the shutdown in Russia could escalate to a certain limit. Citizens' dissatisfaction is also aggravated by the foreign policy situation. The situations that have developed in neighboring states, sanctions from the West and other negative factors affect the general background of moods in a negative way.
Given the totality of all the reasons, there is a high probability and risk that radical moods among the population will only worsen. That is why analysts believe that the period of 2018-2019 is of particular danger. According to experts, the period of presidential elections was the most difficult.
However, if the departure of the current president in 2018 could become the main impetus for mass strikes and demonstrations throughout the Russian Federation, then in 2019 the situation will gradually begin to stabilize. Thus, the risks that a revolutionary movement in Russia in 2019 will lead to a mass riot and a change of power will occur are quite small. That is why experts assure that this year will pass calmly and without radical changes.
Predictions
Most modern people are not very trusting of the predictions of clairvoyants and other soothsayers, but everyone is closely following the predictions of such people. According to Vanga, one of the most famous soothsayers of the 20th century, it is the Russian Federation that will emerge from the crisis by 2020 and regain its leading position in the world rankings.
Wolf Messing predicted huge changes for Russia in the 21st century and called it a superpower, which all European and Western countries will be equal to. Separate predictions also agree that the Russian Federation should take the lead and regain its status as one of the main countries in the world.
The government took full power into its own hands and took a number of measures that expanded civil rights. But in Petrograd and in the localities the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies and the Soviets of Peasants' Deputies acquired great influence.
Due to the war and revolutionary events, the economic crisis intensified, worsening the already difficult situation of the working people. This gave rise to mass despair, the desire to break out of the current situation in one leap, unrealistic expectations and, as a result, the desire for quick and decisive measures that would qualitatively change society - social radicalism. The Bolsheviks became the force that took over the consolidation of the radical soldier and worker masses.
Of particular importance for the fate of the revolution was the return to Russia on April 3, 1917 of the leader of the Bolsheviks, who, despite the resistance of the more moderate leaders of Bolshevism, insisted on a new course - the course towards a socialist revolution. Despite the preservation of significant influence in the party of moderate Bolsheviks (, N. Rykov and others), Lenin's line did not win. This predetermined the alliance and subsequent merger of the Bolsheviks with a group of social democrats-mezhraiontsy, whose leader adhered to the same concept as Lenin, the development of the "bourgeois" revolution into a "socialist" one.
The Soviets were dominated by moderate socialist parties ((Socialist-Revolutionaries, AKP) and Social Democrats -). The socialists were looking for a compromise between the radical masses of workers and the "qualified elements" - the wealthy intelligentsia and entrepreneurs, without whom the effective functioning of the economy was doubtful. However, the desire of the socialists to consolidate society ran into its growing polarization. Having confirmed Russia's readiness to fight until victory, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the leader of the constitutional democrats, provoked unrest and clashes in Petrograd). The socialists and the broad masses of Petrograd hoped for an early peace "in a draw" without annexations and indemnities. In order to restore the stability of the government, the liberals had to attract socialists to it on May 5, 1917 (, M. Skobelev,). However, the liberals blocked the proposals of some of the socialists to carry out social reforms that could somewhat reduce tension in society. The government, for the most part, was in favor of abandoning social reforms before convocation.
The authority of the government was falling. In May, the All-Russian Congress of Peasants' Soviets was held, and in June -. These congresses relied on millions of active citizens and could become a "provisional parliament", which would give the new government additional support and begin social reforms. The idea of creating a socialist Soviet government was supported by the Bolsheviks and part of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks.
The government hoped to rally the citizens of the country around itself with the help of successes at the front. On June 18, 1917, the offensive of the Russian army near Kalush was launched. But the Russian army had already lost its combat effectiveness, the offensive failed, and on July 6, 1917, the enemy launched a counteroffensive.
On July 3 - 4, 1917, the socio-political instability in Petrograd led to, which ended in the political defeat of the Bolsheviks and left socialists. Lenin and some other Bolshevik leaders had to go underground.
After the defeat of the radical left, the leaders of the socialists saw the main threat from the right. The socialist parties restored a coalition with the liberals, this time under the leadership of A. Kerensky, who headed the government on July 8, 1917.
Liberal political circles hoped, relying on the military strength of the commander-in-chief, to establish "firm order" and solve the problems facing the country by militarizing the rear and restoring the offensive capability of the army. leading political forces failed to stop the political polarization. On August 26, 1917, a conflict began between L. Kornilov and A. Kerensky. Kornilov's speech ended with his defeat on September 1, 1917. These events again upset the balance in the system of power. On September 26, 1917, this discussion continued on the left and democratic forces, but Prime Minister Kerensky, contrary to the position of his Socialist-Revolutionary Party, formed a coalition with the Cadets on September 26, 1917. By doing this, he further narrowed the political base of his government, since he was no longer supported by either the Cadets or the left and center wings of the socialists, and the Soviets, in the face of government inaction in the face of the crisis, began to come under the control of the Bolsheviks.
October Revolution
On October 24 - 26, 1917, the October Revolution took place, which brought the Bolsheviks to power, laid the foundations of Soviet power, became the beginning of the October Revolution as a stage of the Russian Revolutionary Revolution and the initial stage in the development of Soviet society. Under the conditions of the coup, he transferred power to the Bolshevik People's Council (SNK), headed by Lenin, elected (All-Russian Central Executive Committee), which played the role of a temporary representative body of power. The congress adopted the first decrees of the Soviet government. proclaimed the transfer of land to the peasants without any redemption, and proclaimed a readiness to immediately conclude peace without annexations and indemnities, for which to enter into peace negotiations with Germany and its allies.
Immediately after the October Revolution, a struggle between supporters and opponents of Soviet power unfolded throughout Russia. A. Kerensky still made attempts to recapture Petrograd, but his campaign ended in failure due to the low popularity of the prime minister among the troops.
National movements also played a significant role in the fight against Bolshevism, but their tasks were territorially limited. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk and the Civil War led to the disintegration of Russia as a single state. In the space of the former Russian Empire, several Soviet republics were formed, controlled from Moscow through the structures of the RCP (b), as well as states independent of Soviet power: Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland.
The “war communism” regime that existed in Russia in 1918-1921 was perceived by the Bolsheviks as a direct road to communism. This policy concentrated in the hands of the leadership of the RCP(b) the resources necessary for waging war. In 1919, the troops of Denikin and Kolchak dangerously approached Moscow. But in the course of fierce battles, by the end of the year, the main White forces were defeated, despite the help of weapons and equipment from abroad, as well as the direct military intervention of foreign states in some areas of the former Russian Empire. The "White" movement continued the war, but in November 1920, the troops under command were defeated in the Crimea, and on October 25, 1922, the "Whites" left Vladivostok. In Russia, the Bolshevik alternative won. The defeat of the whites was predetermined primarily by their elitism, social revanchism, which frightened the masses, and the great-power slogans that mobilized the national minorities of Russia to fight them, as well as the fears of the peasantry to lose land in the event of the victory of the "generals". Having discarded the democratic and socially oriented program of the socialists, the "whites" in the eyes of the majority of the population did not have significant advantages in comparison with the Bolsheviks. Speaking for "order", the white generals could not stop the robberies, they practiced mass arbitrary arrests and executions. Under these conditions, the Reds seemed to the significant masses of the population still the "lesser evil."
The final stage of the revolution
Victory over the armies of Denikin, Yudenich, Wrangel, Kolchak, etc. deprived of sense the state of "single military camp". In the RCP (b) turned around. At the same time, insurgent movements intensified on the territory of Russia and Ukraine, in which hundreds of thousands of people were involved (see, West Siberian uprising of 1921,). The rebels put forward demands for the termination of the surplus, freedom of trade, and the elimination of the Bolshevik dictatorship. Labor unrest intensified. The culmination of this phase of the revolution was. in March 1921, he decided to switch to (NEP) and prohibit factions and groups in the party. With the introduction of the NEP, the attempt at an immediate transition to communism ended.
By 1922, the victory of the Communists (Bolsheviks) in the Russian Revolution was determined. But the results of the revolution were determined not only by their policy, but also by the resistance of the communist policy of the broad masses. The Bolsheviks had to make concessions to the peasant majority of the country, but they were of an exclusively economic nature. All fullness of political power and the "commanding heights" of the economy remained in the hands of the leadership of the RCP (b), which made it possible at any time to resume a policy close to "war communism". The leaders of Bolshevism viewed the NEP as a short-term retreat, a respite.
Despite the instability and temporality of the NEP system, it consolidated the most important socio-economic result of the revolution - the peasantry received land at its full disposal, which was enshrined in Soviet legislation in 1922. A relatively stable socio-economic model was created, oriented towards further industrial modernization. The political regime ensured high vertical mobility. With the formation of the USSR, the rights of peoples to develop their culture were secured insofar as this does not interfere with solving other tasks of the communist regime. Due to the fact that the main tasks of the revolution received one or another solution, we can talk about the end of the Great Russian Revolution by December 30, 1922, when the history of the new state - the USSR began.
Everything will happen at lightning speed. During the day we will hear about small riots, and in three or four hours the center of the Russian capital will be crowded with thousands of columns of demonstrators. The first shot towards the people will be the suicide of the authorities.
The well-known Russian political strategist, doctor of historical sciences, professor at MGIMO Valery Solovey believes that a revolution will take place in Russia and in his article he described the scenario for the development of events.
At the same time, Valery Solovey prefaces his article with the following words: “I will repeat once again, especially for lovers of political denunciations. Everything that is written in this note is nothing more than a summary of what I have stated in my articles and books over the past few years. Moreover, some of these publications were awarded with awards and prizes.
Here is the text of this publication by Valery Solovyov in full:
“All revolutions are the same, like the happy families of Leo Tolstoy. All of them go through three stages in their development: the moral delegitimization of the current government, mass political protest, and the overthrow of the old regime. Sometimes these stages practically coincide in time, sometimes they are separated from each other by some interval. For Russia, most likely, the second is true.
Moral delegitimization is also a revolution, but a psychological one. It always precedes a political revolution. Before overthrowing the government, people must massively despise and hate it. This is exactly what is happening in Russia now. In the parliamentary elections, the "party of crooks and thieves" suffered a moral and political defeat.
Despite the grandiose machine of administrative pressure and falsifications, it lost more than 10% in comparison with the results of the last elections and did not achieve the goal of a constitutional majority. And this is according to official data. According to unofficial, but quite reliable, "the party of crooks and thieves" lost in all major Russian cities, including Moscow and St. Petersburg. Only the North Caucasus and some other national republics remain its reliable support. (Now, I hope, it is clear why the North Caucasus is heavily subsidized to the detriment of the Russian regions?)
This is not the end, or even the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning. The structure of power, lovingly nurtured and nurtured for the past 11 years, began to fail and crumble. In a number of regions, the bureaucratic corps played cautiously but consistently against the EdRa.
At the same time, people are not yet ready to take to the streets en masse and defend their right to free choice. The unanimous vote against the "party of swindlers and thieves" does not automatically lead to a collective street protest.
Moreover, after the parliamentary elections, there will be a decline in public activity for some time, which the authorities consider with relief as stabilization. But in reality this will turn out to be nothing more than a temporary pause before a new stage of the revolution. The HOW the presidential elections will be held will give a powerful new impetus to the moral delegitimization of power. But even more important will be the actions of the authorities after the elections.
Contrary to popular belief, revolutions are not necessarily preceded by a deep socio-economic crisis and mass impoverishment. Many revolutions took place against a backdrop of relative social prosperity. Incomparably more important for the political revolution is the so-called "revolution of expectations", that is, the situation when people lived well and hoped to live even better, but their hopes suddenly collapsed. This "revolution of expectations" our fellow citizens will fully experience next year, when it turns out that the authorities are not going to fulfill the pre-election promises, there is no money in the treasury and it is necessary to tighten their belts. It is easy to imagine the reaction of the military and police, who will be able to pay the promised increase in salaries for only a few months.
It is next year that the so-called new “social” (but in fact completely anti-social) laws on education and medicine will come into force, depriving the population of the opportunity to receive quality medical care and education free of charge. In 2012, the fiscal pressure on businesses and the population will sharply increase. Meanwhile, all studies say: increased fiscal pressure from a morally illegitimate government is a direct road to revolution.
Everything starts suddenly. Revolutions always start unexpectedly even for the revolutionaries themselves, the day and hour of none of them was predicted. By no means an ordinary mind of his era, Ulyanov-Lenin wrote bitterly in January 1917 that his generation would not live to see the revolution in Russia, perhaps children would see it.
An insignificant occasion will give impetus to a grandiose dynamic. Anything can serve as this reason: a street picket, a small rally, a spontaneous blocking of the road, the funeral of another victim of ethnic crime, a car hitting a woman with a child with a flashing light (If the straw is dry, sooner or later it will light up). And suddenly - and this is always "suddenly" - a small group of people will begin to turn into a crowd of many thousands, which will move into the city center, sweeping away the flimsy police cordons along the way.
Everything will happen at lightning speed. In the afternoon we will hear about small riots, and in three or four hours the center of the Russian capital will be flooded with thousands of columns of demonstrators, who will be joined by riot police. This is how a nation is born.
And what about the authorities, is it really not going to resist? Will try, of course. It is unlikely, however, that people who are afraid of whistling at a concert will muster the courage to give the order to open fire on civilians. Unless they really want to repeat the fate of Ceausescu and Gaddafi.
And it is absolutely incredible that SUCH orders were carried out. Those who give them away can hope to escape to their billions, accumulated by overwork in the field of serving the Motherland, but where do the executors of criminal orders flee? And crimes against humanity, as you know, have no statute of limitations and do not deserve indulgence.
The first shot towards the people will be the suicide of the authorities. Foreseeing its own future, it does and will do everything to delay its own end. However, the notorious Russian “tightening the screws” will only lead to the breakdown of the rusty thread and the final destruction of the power structure. Violence emanating from a morally illegitimate regime does not cause fear and submission, but an explosion of indignation and an irresistible desire of the masses to overthrow it - such is the axiom of revolutions.
This, by the way, is the answer to those who associate the revolution with mass violence and bloodshed. Is there an idea for which those in power are willing to die? Or will there be fanatics willing to die for their offshore accounts?
Those who are obsessed with profit inevitably lose to people driven by the desire for freedom and justice. All revolutions in European countries over the past 20 years have been peaceful and bloodless, and Russia will not be an exception. Even in Romania, the overthrow of the Ceausescu regime was accompanied by only local and short-term violence.
Peaceful revolutions happen very quickly. The question of power in Russia will be resolved as quickly as in 1917 and 1991 - in three or four days ... "
Tags: Russia, Politics, revolution
For a revolution, something must happen - in the minds, the heads of people. The Russians endured senile laws and prohibitions, endured a falling standard of living, endured arbitrariness of the police, endured an absolutely swine and bestial attitude towards themselves, endured requisitions, endured lawlessness. What has changed now? In Russia there will be no "intellectual revolution" of the middle class - this train left in 2012.
Of course, sooner or later something will happen. As in the eternally blazing Latin America and impoverished Africa, an authoritarian regime most often ends in a revolution. Because they can't end up with anything else. Of course, any Putinist can fantasize that everything will end well in Russia. That the vertical of power, the absence of a healthy political struggle (and its results - professional politicians), the underdevelopment of the democratic system, the degradation of the legal system - that all this is not an obstacle to a brighter future. We will gently stroke their heads and affectionately promise them a speedy "Third Rome": - "There, knees are prohibited by law as a phenomenon, there are braces everywhere, there the good ones shoot all the bad ones - and everyone is happy."
However, the truth is that in the absence of an established system of power transition, immediately after the death / assassination of Putin, different groups will start to bite each other's throats. All those criminal groups beloved by Putinists will surface - they will surface, because they have not disappeared anywhere. New funny and interesting guys will come up: nationalists "zarus"-sy, religious people, monarchists, commies, nazbols, new putinists and so on. Thousands of volunteers who fought in Syria, Ukraine will surface.. penniless, but with a set of deadly weapons skills. All this motley company will fervently start killing each other for the bright future of Russia and the Russian people.
And the revolution that you think about - it will never happen. Her train has left. Alas.
I guess it's currently undesirable. Yes, in general, as a change of power, this is a dubious tool that will bring the country an even deeper and more protracted crisis. Ukraine has already clearly seen enough of "free life". No thanks. Somewhere in another millennium
Answer
Damn, the revolution is cancelled, right? Not desirable, right? Well, if anything, will you warn there if you suddenly decide to carry out a revolution? It is possible to do a newsletter by date, if not difficult?
So a revolution is always bad, it is a crisis of the system. Only here the revolution is not something that you can "want" or "not want"; it is a natural disaster that is difficult to prevent, that is more than one person, one idea or one personality.
Discourse about the revolution in Russia, from both sides of the political spectrum, is full of infantile naivety. In Russia, they naively believe that the revolution is like choosing a drink at McDonald's. Some say: - "revolution is needed!", others - "revolution is not needed"; both sides naively believe that a revolution can be started and that it can be controlled.
A revolution cannot be started. She cannot be controlled. And if it so happens that a revolution begins in Russia - and sooner or later it will definitely happen - then no one will ask you whether it is desirable or not.
Answer
Comment
Revolution for Russia today is a dubious prospect. However, some experts predict characteristic unrest in the country in the near future. And this is all despite the government’s “tightening the screws” policy that they are discussing, after the 2011 election rallies, and even despite the large-scale amnesty for so-called political prisoners that took place on the eve of the 2014 Olympics in Sochi.
In this article, I want to consider the issue of revolution in Russia within the framework of the history of those transformations that took place on the territory of the state by force and, trying to analyze the current situation, find out - Is a revolution possible in our country in the near future?
By itself, the revolution involves a radical transformation in a particular area of human activity. Moreover, a radical change in society, nature or science, as a rule, occurs spontaneously, which properly distinguishes revolution from evolution. However, a spasmodic transformation - especially in social and political revolutions - is always due to significant prerequisites that can line up in an invisible chain of events for many years and only after an indefinite time suddenly “explode” and result in a chaotically formed cardinal change.
Let's start off with who and for what reasons needed a revolution in Russia in 1917? There are different opinions on this matter, for example, a politician Nikolai Starikov believes that all the revolutionary upheavals carried out in our country were due to the influence of the West, namely the British Empire, which has been striving for world domination since the 17th century and saw it in the Russian Empire as the main competitor.
According to Starikov's theory, both the revolution of 1905 and the uprising of 1917 and even the overthrow of communism in the 90s were paid for and provoked by Western British agents. The main intention of which was through internal clashes to undermine the existing government in the country and lead Russia to a voluntary collapse.
Nevertheless, Europe, if it really aspired to this, has not yet been able to translate into reality its seemingly well-thought-out and cruel plan. The mistake of the British was that in February 1917, after the overthrow of the monarchy and the establishment of dual power in Russia, the situation shook so strongly that the internal revolution could no longer do without the establishment of a new political regime. That is why, as a result of the supposedly violent coming to power of the Bolshevik Party in October 1917, headed by Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, the British allowed a socialist experiment to be carried out in our country. But in this case the British underestimated Lenin himself, who turned out to be a great leader and a serious politician.
Having gained power, the Bolsheviks, despite the collapse of the former empire, which reigned with might and main in Russia in the autumn of 1917, by the spring of 1918 began an active restoration of the country.
There are versions that the prerequisites for the revolution of 1917 in Russia lie in the restless mood at that time in the lower strata of society. Somehow - the lack of food, distrust of the German imperial wife (I remind you that during these years the First World War was going on, where Russia was at war with Germany) and the policy pursued by the tsar, as well as the desire of the peasants to have their own lands. Dissatisfaction with the policy of the king was also observed among circles around the government. Summarizing this information, let's summarize - and the people, and state officials close to Emperor Nicholas II, to a greater extent, were not satisfied with the power and actions of the monarch. That is why the main slogans of the February Revolution were such words as "Down with the King!" And "Of bread!".
But were the people so hungry in the conditions of the First World War then going on, as in other warring countries? No! In Russia at that time there was not even the issuance of food by cards, the first coupons appeared only as a result of the overthrow of the monarchy, under the interim government. In this regard, perhaps, Starikov's opinion about the influence of the British - an external influence on the internal rocking of different strata of the people, really took place.
Was the tsar of the Russian Empire so inactive at the time of the revolutionary mood? In this matter, there is no point in denying that Nicholas II did not show due firmness in dispersing the very first revolutionary-minded demonstrations in Petrograd. Perhaps if the uprisings had been stopped in a timely manner, no more powerful surge would have occurred, but everything happened according to a different scenario, which, perhaps, the king himself could hardly believe.
The result of the February and October revolutions was a radical upheaval in the political and social life of Russia.. Looting, massacres of officers and the rich, the release of prisoners from prisons, civil war, and only then - a course towards restoration, the formation of a new society and new values, the formation of socialism.
It took our country many years and wise leaders to put in order both the political and economic and social situation in Russia. At first, after the disastrous fall of the monarchy, the state turned into an abyss of disasters, but over time, history began to level out. And as a result, such achievements followed - as the complete electrification of the country, the general education of the people - the elimination of illiteracy, the fight against the consequences of the Civil War, the provision of free medicine to all citizens of the Soviet Union, the mass construction of residential buildings, factories, canals, hydroelectric power stations, general industrialization. Victory in the Second World War, the construction of the subway, the creation of a hydrogen bomb, the development of such undeveloped territories as Siberia, the Urals, the Far East, and finally, the flight of man into space! All this is just a fraction of the events and transformations that took place in Russia after the overthrow of the monarchy and the coming to power of the Bolsheviks...
But, as many people know, in the course of such a rapid development of the Union and the strengthening influence of the USSR on the world stage, the country began to gradually move into a stagnant state. On this score, there are many opinions and theories about the possible elimination of the then stagnation and the further development of the country, but already as history, we have the existing consequences - the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Someone connects it again with the influence of the West and the United States on Gorbachev, someone with the incompetence of the country's leadership and the disproportions of the extensive economy, which led to a shortage of goods and empty shelves in stores. Someone claims that Russia simply could not have had any other way of development- it inevitably went towards capitalism, someone is still trying to live according to the principles of the past, tirelessly remembering the Soviet order and customs.
However, I am considering here the question of revolution. And if it is possible to call it the transformations that took place in our country in the period from the beginning of Perestroika announced by Gorbachev to 1991, when Yeltsin came to power almost by force, then I am inclined to say that the consequences of Perestroika led Russia to a new revolution - the results of which we reaped throughout the 90s.
It must be said that and the post-perestroika coup and the revolutions of 1917, if they were financed by the West and were aimed at the collapse of Russia, they were also powerfully supported by people ignorant of these issues - almost unconditionally, due to real discontent. Where in the case of the overthrow of the monarch people fought for land , and during the end of the restructuring - for the opening of borders and against the deficit that has formed everywhere.
Nevertheless, both in the first and in the second case, the rates of the Western governments were made incorrectly, which eventually led to cardinal transformations in Russia, temporary unrest, but the preservation of its territories and resources within the country. Those Soviet republics that separated from our state, which joined the European Union, as well as others striving for independence for one reason or another, did not in the least affect Russia's loss of influence on the world stage.
It is amusing that both in the situation with Vladimir Lenin, to whom the British experimentally entrusted the power of a huge country, and in the case of Vladimir Putin, appointed to the post of President by some irony by the oligarchs of the Yeltsin era, the tricks of the West turned into a complete fiasco.
Why did this happen? Perhaps because opponents did not calculate the strength of the once future leaders of the largest country in the world. Perhaps there are other reasons as well. As a result, the last coup in Russia, which took place in the 90s and turned the country onto a new path of capitalism, led to the fact that at the helm of the state stood a man who has a clear position on the West and the United States, and builds a rigid vertical of his own power, within which it is almost impossible to "rock the boat of the revolution".
And now I want to return to the question of the possible emergence of a revolution in Russia in the near future, predicted by some apparently pro-Western experts.
If we look at the history of the coups discussed above, then all of them are connected, in addition to enemy intrigues, with direct discontent among the masses. At the moment, there are many citizens in Russia who are not satisfied with either their standard of living, or the shortcomings of medicine, or the thickness of someone else's wallet.
However, to say that the people do not have bread or there is no other product that was almost completely absent on the shelves during perestroika is simply ridiculous today.. Shops are overflowing with goods, the world of the modern Russian is simply splashing with the variety of existing offers and opportunities.
Who can start a revolution in such conditions?
Yes, oppositionists are shouting at us from all stands about corruption in the country, and the theme of all the rallies in late 2011 - early 2012 was the fight against the party of "crooks and thieves", but answer me, when were fair elections in our country? When was there no corruption in our country? AND at least one revolution in Russia , perhaps, the truth, skillfully introduced to our people in the subcortex by the West, happened against corruption and theft?
No. The mentality of a Russian is so arranged a priori - he does not know how to fully comply with the law. Perhaps,every third compatriot at least once faced with the submission and or accepting a bribe. This is our society. And society cannot fight against itself . Isn't it obvious?
So who needs a revolution in modern Russia?
Naturally - those who intend to destroy this country, those who have laid eyes on our resources and territorial expanses. And who will go here in Russia to revolt against the existing government? Obviously, those who will become fugitives tomorrow are pro-Western people, young people with iPhones and iPads, who will be demonstratively dispersed and whom people from factories and government agencies will never follow. The latter don't care about the West, or corruption, or what the President does.
Speaking about the civil society of Russia, one can say only one thing- he is not. Perhaps people living in St. Petersburg and Moscow believe that they are able to overcome objectionable authorities, attract the attention of the world community, and even receive some letters as "fighters for a free Russia" again from Western human rights organizations. But if these same "fighters" go along the Trans-Siberian Railway to the deep part of the country and start similar conversations with calls for the "overthrow of power" there – locals will twist a finger at the temple looking them in the face.
The people who vote and support the current government are those 120 million citizens living outside the Ring Road and the Moscow Ring Road. These people are more than anything afraid of instability, because they were the ones who starved in the 90s and stood in endless lines for sausage in the Union.
For these Russians, the current President – guarantor of their stability . Moreover, the Urals, Siberia and the Far East generally live their own lives, and they do not care about the wars in Chechnya, or Western grants, and even more so before the revolution. Unfortunately for the opposition and fortunately for the preservation of the territorial integrity of Russia - our compatriots quite often may be displeased with the current government, but they will never tear themselves away from their everyday issues for the sake of dubious transformations of the whole country.
In addition to these purely observational factors, there is another point worthy of attention and indicative. As a result of the low birth rate after the collapse of the USSR, at this stage in our country the level of a young socially active society is rather meager in quantitative terms. That is, thanks to the instability of the 90s, we now have a deplorable demographic situation.
Now tell me who will go to make a revolution?
Our parents who survived the collapse of the Union? Our still "young" uncles and aunts - whose generation almost completely "burned out" on singed vodka and dubious drugs? Or We? Those who have everything - education, and the ability to freely communicate on the Internet, move around the world, and the prospects for getting an interesting job? Against what should we go to rebel and most importantly for whom?
As long as the rallies, which, by the way, were banned as part of the “crackdown” policy, will be held by well-to-do pro-Western oppositionists, nothing will change in our country. The only thing that will follow because of such "events" is the tightening of the law, the strengthening of the vertical, the creation of an increasingly inflexible image of the country's government in the eyes of Western society.
In addition, the impossibility of a revolution in Russia, envisaged by the policy of Vladimir Putin, is indeed able to guarantee us both economic and social stability. Here I do not mean the global economic crisis, which inevitably affects each state in its own way. Is it within the framework of such living conditions that someone will have a desire to destroy everything and turn the country 180 degrees in a new, incomprehensible direction?
In addition, in order for a coup to take place, and this is obvious even for those oppositionists who violently rallied in December 2011 in St. Petersburg and in Moscow, a country like Russia needs a leader - a person who can take the place of the President, a person who the people will believe. In the meantime, such a character is not visible on the horizon, there can be no talk of any coup! Nobody wants to live in troubled times. Moreover, today's Russian society, in which the impression of all the charms and shortcomings of the Soviet period, as well as the August coup, still burns with too vivid a memory ...
But Is a revolution in Russia so impossible as it is seen from existing trends and facts? In fact there is a variant of sudden and unpredictable development of events in our country. AND it may be related with the sudden departure of Vladimir Putin from the post of President.
Naturally, our President will not be able to give up the post of head of state for no reason, and in general, such an outcome is rather doubtful. However, Putin is also a man who clearly cannot live forever. But what awaits Russia after Putin? – should be the main question for contemporaries.
Probably, such a situation would become excellent ground just for the revolution, again agitated by Western agents. Perhaps this event would have provoked the entry into the arena of a certain successor - just as unbending and autocratic. The coming to power of pro-Western capitalists is also not ruled out. In any case, Russia is waiting for a new and unstable, shaky position for a couple of decades, in the worst case, a long-awaited for Europe the collapse of the country into separate tidbits of resources.
And, despite the fact that the revolution in Russia today is a dubious, albeit predicted by a number of experts, prospect, Russian society must be prepared for the fact that such a turn of events does take place. What can this lead to? - a question of the future, which only the prophets can predict. How to behave in a spontaneous revolution? - you can ask your parents, since the history of our country over the past century is rich in such twists and turns. What should we be afraid of? - the collapse of the integrity of the country and, as a result, the seizure of natural resources by foreign states.
What do you think about the revolution in Russia? Is it possible in today's conditions?
