Topic: RUSSIA IN THE 90s OF THE XX CENTURY.

INTERNAL POLITICS OF RUSSIA

Since the end of 1991, a new state has appeared on the international political arena - Russia, the Russian Federation (RF). It consisted of 89 regions, including 21 autonomous republics. The Russian leadership had to continue its course towards the democratic transformation of society and the creation of a rule of law state. Among the top priorities was taking measures to get the country out of the economic and political crisis. It was necessary to create new bodies for managing the national economy and form Russian statehood.

Continuation of the course of reforms. The state apparatus of Russia at the end of the 80s consisted of a two-tier system of representative authorities - the Congress of People's Deputies and the bicameral Supreme Council. The head of the executive branch was President B.N., elected by popular vote. Yeltsin. He was also the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. The highest judicial authority was the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation. The predominant role in the highest structures of power was played by former deputies of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. From among them, presidential advisers were appointed - V. Shumeiko and Yu. Yarov, Chairman of the Constitutional Court V.D. Zorkin, many heads of local administrations.

The activities of the state apparatus took place in conditions of severe confrontation between the legislative and executive powers. The V Congress of People's Deputies, held in November 1991, gave the president broad powers to carry out economic reforms. The majority of deputies of the Russian parliament during this period supported the course of social and economic reform. By the beginning of 1992, the government, headed by economist E.T. Gaidar, developed a program of radical reforms in the field of the national economy. The central place in it was occupied by measures to transfer the economy to market methods of management (measures of “shock therapy”).

The main role in the process of transition to the market was assigned to the privatization (denationalization) of property. Its result should have been the transformation of the private sector into the dominant sector of the economy. Tough taxation measures, price liberalization and strengthening of social assistance to the poor part of the population were envisaged.

The price liberalization carried out in accordance with the program caused a sharp jump in inflation. Over the year, consumer prices in the country increased almost 26 times. The standard of living of the population decreased: in 1994 it was 50% of the level of the early 90s. Payments to citizens of their cash savings stored in the State Bank stopped.

Privatization of state property primarily covered retail trade, public catering and consumer services enterprises. As a result of the privatization policy, 110,000 industrial enterprises passed into the hands of private entrepreneurs. Thus, the public sector has lost its leading role in the industrial sector. However, the change in the form of ownership did not increase production efficiency. In 1990-1992 the annual decline in production was 20%. By the mid-90s, heavy industry was practically destroyed. Thus, the machine tool industry operated at only half its capacity. One of the consequences of the privatization policy was the collapse of the energy infrastructure.

The economic crisis had a hard impact on the development of agricultural production. The lack of agricultural machinery, especially for farms, and the organizational restructuring of business forms led to a drop in yield levels. The volume of agricultural production in the mid-90s fell by 70% compared to 1991-1992. The number of cattle decreased by 20 million heads.

Constitutional crisis. The course towards economic liberalization, the ongoing economic crisis and the lack of social guarantees caused dissatisfaction and irritation among a significant part of the population. Many officials expressed dissatisfaction with the results of the reforms. In December 1992, under pressure from the legislative branch, the government of E.T. resigned. Gaidar. B.C. became the new Prime Minister of the Cabinet of Ministers of the Russian Federation. Chernomyrdin, who for many years was in managerial economic work. But this did not relieve tension in society and in the relationship between President B.N. Yeltsin and parliament. The lack of a clear division of responsibilities between the legislative and executive branches of government led to an intensification of the conflict between them. Many members of the deputy corps advocated returning the country to the path of previous political development and for the restoration of the USSR. In December 1992 B.N. Yeltsin, in an address to the people, announced the transformation of parliament into a “reactionary force.”

The confrontation between the authorities especially intensified in the fall of 1993. By this time, the president and his advisers had prepared a draft of a new Constitution of the Russian Federation. However, members of parliament, trying to limit the omnipotence of the president, postponed its adoption. September 21, 1993 B.N. Yeltsin announced the dissolution of representative government bodies - the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation and the Congress of People's Deputies. Elections for a new parliament were scheduled for December 12. Some deputies refused to recognize the legitimacy of the president’s action and announced his removal from power. The new president, A.V., was sworn in. Rutskoi, who until that moment held the post of Vice President of the Russian Federation.

In response to the anti-constitutional act of the president in Moscow, opposition forces organized demonstrations and erected barricades in a number of places (October 2-3). An unsuccessful attempt was made to storm the mayor's office and the Ostankino television center. Several tens of thousands of people took part in an attempt to change the course of socio-economic reforms. A state of emergency was declared in the capital, and troops were sent into the city. During the events, several hundred of its participants were killed or injured.

Domestic policy. In December 1993, elections were held to a new government body - the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, consisting of two chambers: the Federation Council and the State Duma. On the eve of the elections, several political blocs and coalitions emerged. The blocs “Russia's Choice” and “Yavlinsky, Boldyrev, Lukin” (“Ya-B-L”), the Russian Movement of Democratic Reforms, and the election association “Fatherland” have become widely known. Most associations and parties advocated for a variety of forms of ownership, strengthening social protection of the population, and for the unity and integrity of Russia. However, on issues of nation-state building, their positions fundamentally diverged. The “Ya-B-L” bloc defended the idea of ​​a constitutional federation, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation - the restoration of the union state on a new basis, the LDPR - the revival of the Russian state within the pre-1977 framework.

As a result of elections held on a multi-party basis, representatives of 8 parties entered parliament. The largest number of seats went to Russia's Choice, the LDPR, the Agrarian Party and the Communist Party of the Russian Federation.

The first chairman of the Federation Council was V.F. Shumeiko, former director of one of the country's large industrial enterprises. The State Duma was headed by I.P. Rybkin. From the first days of the work of the State Duma, several party factions arose within its composition, the most numerous of which was the “Choice of Russia” faction (chaired by E.T. Gaidar).

a federal legal state with a republican form of government. The head of state was the president, elected by popular vote. The Russian Federation included 21 republics and 6 territories, 1 autonomous region and 10 autonomous districts, 2 federal cities (Moscow and St. Petersburg) and 49 regions. The principles for constructing the highest bodies of state power and administration were determined. The bicameral structure of the Federal Assembly, the permanent legislative body of the Russian Federation, was legislated. The jurisdiction of the highest authorities of Russia included: the adoption of laws and control over their implementation, management of federal state property, the basics of pricing policy, and the federal budget. They were responsible for resolving issues of foreign policy and international relations, declaring war and concluding peace, and managing foreign economic relations. The independence of the bodies of the three branches of government - legislative, executive and judicial - was emphasized. Political multi-party system, the right to freedom of labor and the right to private property were legislated. The Constitution created the conditions for achieving political stability in society.

Supreme authorities of the Russian Federation

(since December 1993)

head of state

President of the Russian Federation

Constitutional Court Supreme Court Supreme Arbitration Court

Issues of economic and national policy, social security and international relations occupied a central place in the work of the State Duma of the first convocation. During 1993-1995 Deputies adopted over 320 laws, the vast majority of which were signed by the president. Among them are the Laws on the government and the constitutional system, on new forms of property, on peasant and farm enterprises, on joint-stock companies, and on free economic zones.

Public associations and parties went to the State Duma elections in 1995 with clear demands in the economic and political fields. The central place in the election platform of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (Chairman of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation - G.A. Zyuganov) was occupied by the demands for the peaceful restoration of the Soviet system in Russia, an end to the process of denationalization and nationalization of the means of production. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation advocated the termination of foreign policy treaties that “infringed” on the interests of the country.

Formed on the eve of the elections, the All-Russian socio-political movement “Our Home is Russia” united representatives of the executive structures of government, economic and business strata. Participants in the movement saw the main economic task in the formation of a mixed economic system on the principles inherent in a market economy. The role of the state was to create favorable conditions for the development of small and medium-sized businesses and business activity of the population.

450 deputies were elected to the State Duma of the second convocation. The overwhelming majority of them were employees of legislative and executive authorities, many of them were members of the previous deputy corps. 36% of the total number of seats in the Duma was won by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, 12% by “Our Home is Russia”, 11% by the LDPR, 10% by the G.A. bloc. Yavlinsky (“Yabloko”), 17% are independent and 14% are other electoral associations.

The composition of the State Duma predetermined the acute nature of the inter-party struggle on all domestic political issues considered in it. The main struggle unfolded between supporters of the chosen path of economic and political reform and the opposition, in whose ranks were the factions of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the Liberal Democratic Party and the G.A. bloc. Yavlinsky. The instability of domestic political life, caused, in particular, by tensions in interethnic relations, gave the events particular poignancy and drama. One of the hotbeds of interethnic conflicts was in the North Caucasus. Only with the help of the Russian army was it possible to stop the armed clashes that arose due to territorial disputes between the Ingush and Ossetians. In 1992, Checheno-Ingushetia was divided into two independent republics. The development of the separatist movement in Chechnya led to a split in the leadership of the republic and armed conflicts between the separatists and the official authorities. In December 1994, the Russian Armed Forces were introduced into the territory of Chechnya. This marked the beginning of the Chechen war, which ended only at the end of 1996. The peace agreement signed in November 1996 between the Russian and Chechen leadership provided for the withdrawal of federal armed forces from Chechnya and the holding of presidential elections in the republic.

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS OF RUSSIA

Principles of foreign policy. The collapse of the USSR changed Russia's position in the international arena and its political and economic ties with the outside world. The foreign policy concept of the Russian Federation put forward the priority tasks of preserving territorial integrity and independence, ensuring favorable conditions for the development of a market economy and inclusion in the world community. It was necessary to achieve recognition of Russia as the legal successor of the former Soviet Union at the UN, as well as assistance from Western countries in carrying out a course of reforms. An important role was assigned to Russia's foreign trade with foreign countries. Foreign economic relations were considered as one of the means of overcoming the economic crisis in the country.

Russia and foreign countries. After the August 1991 events, diplomatic recognition of Russia began. The head of Bulgaria Zh. Zhelev arrived for negotiations with the Russian president. At the end of the same year, B.N.’s first official visit took place. Yeltsin abroad - to Germany. The countries of the European Community declared recognition of the sovereignty of Russia and the transfer to it of the rights and obligations of the former USSR. In 1993-1994 partnership and cooperation agreements were concluded between EU states and the Russian Federation. The Russian government has joined the Partnership for Peace program proposed by NATO. The country was included in the International Monetary Fund. She managed to negotiate with the largest banks in the West to defer payments for the debts of the former USSR. In 1996, Russia joined the Council of Europe, which was responsible for issues of culture, human rights, and environmental protection. European states supported Russia's actions aimed at its integration into the world economy.

The role of foreign trade in the development of the Russian economy has noticeably increased. The destruction of national economic ties between the republics of the former USSR and the collapse of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance caused a reorientation of foreign economic relations. After a long break, Russia was granted most favored nation treatment in trade with the United States. The states of the Middle East and Latin America were permanent economic partners. As in previous years, thermal and hydroelectric power plants were built in developing countries with Russian participation (for example, in Afghanistan and Vietnam). Metallurgical plants and agricultural facilities were built in Pakistan, Egypt and Syria.

Trade contacts have been preserved between Russia and the countries of the former CMEA, through whose territory gas and oil pipelines ran to Western Europe. The energy resources exported through them were also sold to these states. The counter trade items were medicines, food and chemical products. The share of Eastern European countries in the total volume of Russian trade decreased by 1994 to 10%.

Relations with the CIS countries. The development of relations with the Commonwealth of Independent States occupied an important place in the government's foreign policy activities. In 1993, the CIS included, in addition to Russia, eleven more states. At first, the central place in relations between them was occupied by negotiations on issues related to the division of property of the former USSR. Borders were established with those countries that had introduced national currencies. Agreements were signed that determined the conditions for the transportation of Russian goods through their territory abroad.

The collapse of the USSR destroyed traditional economic ties with the former republics. In 1992-1995. Trade turnover with the CIS countries fell. Russia continued to supply them with fuel and energy resources, primarily oil and gas. The structure of import receipts was dominated by consumer goods and food. One of the obstacles to the development of trade relations was the financial debt of Russia from the Commonwealth states that had formed in previous years. In the mid-90s, its size exceeded $6 billion.

The Russian government sought to maintain integration ties between the former republics within the CIS. On his initiative, the Interstate Committee of the Commonwealth Countries was created with its headquarters in Moscow. An agreement on collective security was concluded between six (Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, etc.) states, and the charter of the CIS was developed and approved. At the same time, the Commonwealth of countries did not represent a single formalized organization.

Interstate relations between Russia and the former republics of the USSR were not easy. There were heated disputes with Ukraine over the division of the Black Sea Fleet and ownership of the Crimean Peninsula. Conflicts with the governments of the Baltic states were caused by discrimination against the Russian-speaking population living there and the unresolved nature of some territorial issues. Russia's economic and strategic interests in Tajikistan and Moldova were the reasons for its participation in armed clashes in these regions. The relationship between the Russian Federation and Belarus developed most constructively.

The activities of the Russian government within the country and in the international arena testified to its desire to overcome conflicts in relations with states both far and near abroad. His efforts were aimed at achieving stability in society, at completing the transition from the previous, Soviet, model of development to a new socio-political system, to a democratic state of law.

The 90s - what was it? It is impossible to unambiguously estimate this period of time. On the one hand, this is the era of destruction of the former Soviet system. One of its main ideas was similar to the ideas of the Bolsheviks. Doctor of Historical Sciences spoke about the unaccounted mistakes of the reformers of the 90s and their impact on Russian society during his lecture held at the Museum of Contemporary History of Russia. publishes excerpts from his speech.

Those who study not only the history of the 90s, but also the history of the 20th century, will find many analogies in this period with the period 1917-1920 and will see that the people who then came to power had a Bolshevik consciousness. They wanted to destroy the USSR to the ground as quickly as possible, so that they could then try to create a completely new Russia. In fact, of course, processes then taking place were completely opposite to those introduced by the Bolsheviks in 1917. But the methods and ideas were absolutely the same, just with a different denominator.

At the same time, it is not very clear why the people who were in power - in fact very smart and educated - did not understand how difficult what they had to do would be. Why didn’t they take into account things that we, humanists (historians, in particular) generally understand? Of course, we must make allowances for the fact that there was very little time to make decisions, and the country was on the verge of collapse. But still, could it have been done differently, and what needed to be taken into account for this?

National specifics

When I studied social history, I saw very clearly that social structures are much more conservative than political and economic institutions. In historical science, this is called “dependence on the past,” when society and its structures depend on past experience. Was it necessary to take into account our Russian specifics when carrying out the reforms of the 90s? Of course it is necessary. Was it taken into account? I'm afraid not.

Photo: Vladimir Perventsev / RIA Novosti

During the radical economic transformations, their most difficult component was mass unemployment, which did not exist in the USSR for many decades - the last labor exchange was closed in 1930. People have completely lost their memory of how to survive in such conditions. In the 90s, millions of unemployed people appeared in the country, who found themselves in an extremely difficult situation; they had nothing to feed their families. Many broke down, lost property, housing, and became homeless.

When people were on the verge of starvation, their memory of hunger turned on. It was because, paradoxically, Soviet scarcity and the memory of the war were transformed into sociocultural practices. People knew how to cultivate the land. They understood that if you have nothing to eat, you need to go to your personal plot, where you can grow basic food so as not to die of hunger.

But it was necessary to understand that in the conditions of radical reforms it was necessary to create some kind of safety net for society and carry out certain government programs! For example, in career guidance, when there is a surplus of labor in one profession and a shortage in another. Yes, labor exchanges opened, but there were laws according to which, in order to prove that you were unemployed, you had to go through the seven circles of hell. As a result, according to official statistics, in the 90s there were 1.5 million unemployed, and trade unions claimed that there were 5-6 million.

If we talk about macro processes, was it really impossible to understand the specifics and structure of the Soviet economy? In the Soviet Union, it was absolutely rational and provided for (especially towards the end of the Soviet era) the erosion of small and medium-sized industries, the monopolization of many industries and gigantomania, when supergiants were created on the basis of already large enterprises and became practically monopolists in their industry. The Soviet economy generally contradicted the idea of ​​competition; it considered competition irrational. And then immediately these gigantic industries found themselves in a market economy situation.

I had the opportunity to participate in an interesting project dedicated to the history of the Volzhsky Automobile Plant in the 90s. Using his example, the specifics of the transition from the Soviet system to the market one became very clear to me. The Volzhsky Automobile Plant was the largest enterprise in the USSR in terms of the number of employees, employing 100 thousand people.

The specificity of the division of power in a Soviet enterprise (such as VAZ, for example) between it and the state is that the latter finances the plant. From him the company receives wages for workers and future financing. Then the state takes the car, sells it itself and disposes of the proceeds from the sale. The plant just has to organize production, and that’s it. Suppliers of materials for it are also determined by the state, some of which are from the Soviet Union, and some from the CMEA.

As soon as the USSR collapsed, VAZ almost immediately found itself - like other enterprises - in a situation where the state pulled back from financial issues, provision of suppliers and components. Some of them were now in other countries - the Czech Republic, Poland and so on. The other part is in the Baltic states, Belarus. As a result, the plant almost instantly lost 80 percent of its suppliers, and did not know where to look for them. He had no experience even in selling cars on his own.

LogoVAZ Berezovsky is the structure to which the management of VAZ began to bow. And not only there, but in general to any dealers who were ready to sell cars, because there was simply nowhere to put them, and areas for storing products were limited. Soon, a native of LogoVAZ became the financial director of the plant. Can you imagine what a scam it is? He is both the top manager of a company that produces cars and at the same time sells them.

This illustrates well the difficult situation the country has found itself in. The Soviet monopoly system did not provide for any competition. If one supplier folded, there was no alternative, and VAZ itself began to artificially create a competitive environment, which took years, because no one else was going to do it for it.

Politics and economics

When at the turn of the 80-90s the need for reform of both the political and economic systems became obvious, in my opinion, Yeltsin’s team absolutely correctly chose the economy as a priority, and then began to move on to politics. There were several alternative options for the economic transformation of Russia. One of them was called “500 days”, and he took part in its development. It came from the concepts of Academician Abalkin and other economists. The point was to carry out economic reforms gradually, taking into account the specifics of the country, including the advantages of socialism and elements of a planned economy.

Another concept came from an ultra-liberal view of transformation, and it was this one that was chosen by the Russian leadership. Why did this happen? The debate about this has its roots in the debate between supporters of Keynesian and ultra-liberal approaches. Of course, its essence rests on the main question of the role of the state in a market economy. Supporters of the ultra-liberal concept, which was implemented in our country, believe that the state should withdraw itself from economic processes and give everything to the will of the market, which itself will put everything in its place.

Proponents of the alternative approach, once developed by Keynes and subsequently his supporters, believe that the state, on the contrary, should have an important regulatory function here. For example, with the help of tax preferences, stimulate real production, preventing what we had when real production was left behind, strangled by taxes. But the raw materials and banking sectors of the economy developed very successfully and did not experience any tax oppression from the state.

Could it have been different? It is possible, but the political moment played an important role here. Proponents of reform associated Keynes's concept to some extent with a return to socialism. As a result, for political reasons, a concept more suitable for our state was postponed and another was chosen, which turned out to be much more painful for the Russian economy.

Who were the foreign economic advisers, some of whom we invited ourselves, and some of whom came with the Economic Bank for Reconstruction, organizations that helped us carry out reforms? I do not know a single supporter of the Keynesian approach among them. They professed exclusively ultra-liberal concepts of reforms in Russia. It is clear that for ideological reasons, people were chosen who adhere to only one point of view.

But in fact, as Filatov told me, when discussions were held about which approach to choose, and entire delegations of the Supreme Council went to America, brainstorming sessions were held there, in which economists of completely different views took part. Many of them expressed very correct and rational ideas regarding the transfer of the Russian economy to a market economy. Their opinion was not taken into account. Everything connected with the Soviet past was cursed. That's what the problem was - the ideologization of economic reforms.

If you look at the specifics of Western countries, including America, whose experience we tried to copy at the time when the project of economic reforms in Russia was being chosen, these states were social, and the state in them played a very large role in regulating processes in the economy. We talked about the need to rid agriculture of government funding. But in all developed Western countries this is the norm.

There is no such thing as too much power

After the start of radical economic reforms, the political-constitutional crisis of 1992-1993 broke out, leading to the shooting of the White House, on the eve of the civil war. What is its reason? Please note that this problem relates to the problem of separation of powers, for which the Soviet system was actively criticized at the turn of the 80s and 90s. In practice, the situation turned out to be extremely complex and confusing.

Photo: Alexander Makarov / RIA Novosti

The Supreme Council and the Congress of People's Deputies had both legislative and executive functions. When the president and his team began economic reforms, they turned to deputies for emergency powers and received them in the fall of 1991. As a result, a situation has arisen in which the Supreme Council and the Congress are on the one hand, and the president and the government are on the other. Both of them received both legislative and executive functions at the same time.

In the government, the situation was even more complicated, since it itself developed bills, then in the form of presidential decrees they received the form of laws, went down to the government, which implemented the bills it had developed. It seems that it had to account for its actions to the deputies. But as soon as deputies, who reflect the opinion of a society that finds itself in conditions of shock therapy and unemployment, begin to criticize the government, a conflict arises between them, aggravated by the problem that both branches of government have both legislative and executive functions. A war of laws began, leading to a coup at the end of 1993.

Yeltsin's achievements

As a result of the reforms, the social structure of society has changed greatly. At the end of the Soviet era, as a result of targeted policies, the bulk of the population of the USSR was the Soviet middle class. These were representatives of a wide variety of professional strata of society: the intelligentsia, skilled workers, and representatives of the agricultural sector.

In the 90s, the Soviet middle class ceased to exist. Moreover, very strong social differentiation occurred, and completely new social categories emerged. If in Soviet ideology the main bearer of “Sovietness” was the working class, then in the new system entrepreneurs became the support of the regime. The emergence of small businesses, which flourished precisely in the 90s, is very important. True, many small enterprises very quickly ceased to exist, unable to withstand competition in those conditions. But the marginalization of society also began. Social categories have appeared that practically did not exist in Soviet times: the unemployed, the homeless, street children, and crime has grown.

Photo: Alexey Malgavko / RIA Novosti

The problem was not only this, but also the sharp polarization of incomes of the population; the difference between the poor and the rich became catastrophic. This continues to be a legacy of the 90s, not only economically, but also politically, since it was the state that allowed such a level of inequality. As well as the structuring of the economy - we have never had the economy divided into these sectors: fuel and energy, real and banking. There is still a division between the budgetary and commercial spheres, which is not the case in any other country (at least, such a clear division). In Soviet times, of course, there was also a shadow economy, but in the 90s, according to various estimates, the share of the black market in national income was almost 50 percent; accordingly, the state did not receive taxes and was not able to implement social programs in various areas .

Summing up what I said, I would like to draw several conclusions. The first is that at the beginning of the reforms no one knew how to do this, because there was nothing like this in world practice. Therefore, many things were inevitably done through trial and error, and it was impossible to do otherwise. Another thing, in my opinion, is the degree of radicalism, ideologization, lack of consideration of Russian specifics and the hope that the Western model should be taken as a model - this was an absolute mistake of the reformers.

The country has repeatedly stood on the verge of civil war. The fact that we avoided it is, of course, our happiness and partly the merit of the country's leadership led by Yeltsin. This person, thanks to his determination and willingness to take responsibility, deserves respect. At the decisive moment, it turned out that many ran away into the bushes. Often everyone seems to say great things, but when you need to do something, stand up in front of everyone and say: “I’m ready to take responsibility!”, they disappear.

In the 90s, Russia embarked on the path of global reforms, which turned into innumerable disasters for the country - rampant banditry, population decline, and a sharp drop in living standards. For the first time, Russians learned what price liberalization, a financial pyramid and default are.

Half a liter for the price of a Volga

In August 1992, Russian citizens were given the opportunity to purchase privatization checks (vouchers), which could be exchanged for assets of state-owned enterprises. The authors of the reforms promised that for a voucher, the nominal value of which was 10 thousand rubles, the population could buy two Volgas, but by the end of 1993 it could barely be exchanged for two bottles of vodka. However, the most enterprising players who had access to classified information were able to make a fortune from privatization checks.

Change - I don’t want to

Until July 1, 1992, the official exchange rate of the ruble corresponded to 56 kopecks per American dollar, but it was impossible for a mere mortal to purchase currency at such a rate, which did not correspond to the market price. Subsequently, the government equated the dollar to the exchange rate, and it suddenly soared to 125 rubles, that is, 222 times. The country has entered an era of currency speculation.

Both for yourself and for others

Everyone who found themselves in the foreign exchange business in the early 90s fell under the “roof”. The currency speculators were protected either by bandits or the police. Considering the solid margin (the difference between the real market rate and the speculative one), both the currency traders themselves and their “roof” earned good money. So, from 1000 American dollars then you could make $100. On the most successful days, a currency speculator could earn up to 3,000 bucks.

Shrink belts

In 1991, grocery stores were usually divided into two parts: one selling goods without restrictions, the other selling goods using coupons. In the first one you could find black bread, marinades, seaweed, pearl barley or barley, and canned food. In the second, after standing in a huge line, you could use coupons to buy milk, ham, frozen fish, rice, millet, flour, eggs, butter, tea, candy, vodka and cigarettes. At the same time, the volumes of purchased products were strictly limited - 1 kg of flour, 1 dozen eggs, 1 liter of butter.

Prices are crazy

Changes in the cost of essential goods were the main indicator of the deteriorating economic situation in the country. So, if at the end of 1991 a loaf of bread cost 1.8 rubles, then at the end of January, after the liberalization of prices, you had to pay 3.6 rubles for it. Further - more: in June 1992, the price tag for bread jumped to 11 rubles, in November - to 20. By January 1994, the price for a loaf of bread had already reached 300 rubles. In just over 2 years, bread prices have risen 166 times!

I can't afford a cloak

The record holder for price increases was communal services, which increased 147 times over the period 1992-93. At the same time, salaries were increased only 15 times. What was the purchasing power of the ruble? For example, in June 1993, the average salary in the country was 22 thousand rubles. 1 kg of butter cost 1,400-1,600 rubles, 1 kg of meat – 2,000 rubles, half a liter of vodka – 1,200 rubles, a liter of gasoline (AI-78) – 1,500 rubles, a woman’s raincoat – 30,000 rubles.

Everything to the market

Many Russians had to change their field of activity in order to somehow survive. The most popular profession at the dawn of the 90s was the “shuttle trader”. According to some data, up to a quarter of working-age citizens of the Russian Federation were suppliers of consumer goods. It is difficult to establish the exact earnings of the shuttle traders, since almost all the money was put into circulation. On average, in one trip it was possible to sell goods worth 200-300 dollars.

Deadly product

Alcohol consumption in the mid-90s reached its highest level in the entire history of our country - 18 liters per person per year. They drank mostly surrogates and cheap imported products. It’s all to blame for the exorbitant excise tax of 90%, which left high-quality domestic vodka – Stolichnaya, Pshenichnaya, Russian – gathering dust in warehouses.” The number of deaths from poisoning with low-quality alcohol, among which the Dutch Royal alcohol was in the lead, reached 700 thousand annually.

Frightening decline

The 90s are remembered for catastrophic demographic indicators. According to the calculations of deputies of the Communist Party faction, in the period from 1992 to 1998, the natural population decline exceeded 4.2 million people, and the number of the country's working population decreased annually by an average of 300 thousand. During this period, approximately 20 thousand villages were depopulated.

No one needs

In May 1992, the Russian government repealed the pension law in force in the USSR and introduced new standards, to which reduction factors were applied. As a result of the scandalous innovation, the real pensions of about 35 million Russians were halved. The contingent of street vendors will primarily come from among pensioners.

Survive at any cost

On September 30, 1991, mortuary workers and forensic experts from a number of cities in the Far East met in Khabarovsk to discuss issues of survival during the crisis. In particular, they touched upon the issues of entering markets for organs removed from corpses. And there was something to bargain about. So, an eyeball cost a thousand dollars, a kidney - $14 thousand, a liver - $20 thousand.

Money down the drain

On August 17, 1998, the Russian government declared a default. In just a few months, the dollar exchange rate soared by 300%. The total losses of the Russian economy were then estimated at $96 billion, commercial banks lost $45 billion, the corporate sector - $33 billion, ordinary citizens - $19 billion.

Defend yourself

On July 8, 1991, during another attack by the Caucasian mafia on one of the mines in the Magadan region, a kilogram of gold was stolen. And again the Kolyma police were unable to help. Then law enforcement authorities allowed state gold miners to arm themselves. After all, it was weapons that were the main factor restraining bandits from attacking free miners.

Bloody years

The mid-90s in Russia were marked by an unprecedented rampant banditry. According to FSB Major General Alexander Gurov, about 32 thousand intentional murders were registered per year, of which 1.5 thousand were contract killings. Old people especially suffered. Over the course of a couple of the most terrible years, in Moscow alone, about 15 thousand lonely elderly people were killed because of apartments.

Coveted fast food

The first McDonald's in Russia, which appeared on Pushkin Square in January 1990, caused an unprecedented stir. Over 25 thousand applications were submitted for 630 jobs. The monthly salary of a McDonald's employee could reach 300 rubles, which exceeded the average salary in the country. Prices at McDuck were outrageous. For example, for a Big Mac you had to pay 3 rubles. 75 kop. For comparison, lunch in a regular canteen cost 1 ruble.

Russia in the 90s of the XX century

The 90s went down in Russian history as a time of democratic transformations in many areas of social and political life - the first congresses of people's deputies of the USSR, the formation of the Russian Federation, setting a course for the creation of a rule of law state, etc. Against this background, one of the main tasks facing the new Russia was to overcome the economic, social and political crisis. A course was set to continue the democratic and social reforms begun in the second half of the 1980s.

Changes in the government system of the USSR and Russia. On May 25, 1989, the First Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR opened, which was a major political event in the history of the Soviet state. For the first time, elections of deputies were held on an alternative basis (only at the union level a third of deputy seats were reserved for direct nominees of the party itself and public organizations led by it). The permanent Supreme Soviets of the USSR and union republics were formed from among the people's deputies. All this looked like a victory for democracy. The practical results of the First Congress were few. In addition to the election of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, several general resolutions were adopted, in particular the Resolution on the main directions of the domestic and foreign policy of the USSR.

President B. N. Yeltsin, elected by popular vote, became the head of the executive branch of Russia. At the beginning of his presidency, B. N. Yeltsin “distributed” sovereignty “to each according to his abilities,” but promised to preserve the unity of Russia. But the unity of genuine, historical Russia, which existed since 1922 at the head of the USSR, was destroyed in Belovezhskaya Pushcha on December 8, 1991 by the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus B. N. Yeltsin, L. Kravchuk, L. M. Shushkevich, who announced the dissolution USSR and the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). On December 21, at a meeting in Almaty, eight more republics joined the CIS. On December 25, M. S. Gorbachev resigned from the post of President of the USSR.

Domestic policy. Since the beginning of 1992, the situation in the country has remained extremely tense. The prices released in January caused a rapid rise in inflation, deepened problems in the social sphere, increased the impoverishment of the masses, a decline in production, and increased crime and corruption.

At the end of 1992, the privatization of state property began, which by the fall of 1994 covered a third of industrial enterprises and two-thirds of trade, consumer and service enterprises. As a result of the privatization policy, 110 thousand industrial enterprises passed into the hands of private entrepreneurs.

The economic crisis also had a negative impact on the country's agricultural sector, which led, first of all, to a drop in crop yields and a decrease in the number of cattle and small ruminants. The established farms continued to collapse due to a lack of agricultural equipment, insufficient attention to their needs by the leaders of a number of regions of the country, and exorbitant taxes.

Social and political life. The modern history of Russia, the beginning of which can be dated back to 1985, is one of the dramatic periods of its development. In a short time, the communist regime and the CPSU collapsed, the Soviet Union collapsed, and in its place new independent states were formed, including the Russian Federation.

On the one hand, Russian parties, movements and blocs are becoming a full-fledged element of the emerging political system, subjects of “big politics”, developing in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the federal law “On Public Associations”. This is evidenced by the results of the elections to the State Duma of Russia on December 17, 1995, when predominantly the parties and movements of the “left”, “national-patriotic” and “democratic opposition” represented by the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia and the Yabloko association won ".

On the other hand, the elections of the President of Russia on June 16, 1996 showed a clear division of the society of political parties into two opposing camps - supporters of the elected President B.N. Yeltsin and his opponents.

450 deputies were elected to the State Duma of the second convocation.

The current party activity is taking place in a transition period, which determines its inconsistency and unevenness: some parties have not only conquered the parliamentary Olympus, but have also firmly established themselves at this point, others have stopped at the near or distant approaches to it, and others have generally taken a wait-and-see attitude or are rapidly being marginalized.

The activities of parties and social movements turned out to be complex and ambiguous for the political life of Russian society. The socio-political life of Russia has in many cases become richer and more diverse. At the same time, the disregard by some parties, blocs and movements of an honest opposition struggle for power between themselves and the Russian state structures resulted in significant losses for society.

Foreign policy and relations with the CIS countries. The geopolitical realities of the modern world make it possible to consider Russia as one of the important centers of world politics, which, like all other countries, has its own interests in the world. The distribution of its foreign policy priorities can be seen, first of all, in the diagram of the concentric distribution of the borders of the former USSR.

In determining its own foreign policy prospects, Russia is in a very difficult position: firstly, the resource base for supporting the country's foreign policy has been significantly reduced. In addition, Russia's borders turned out to be more open and less secure; secondly, Russia’s economic weakness and the difficulties associated with the formation of its own statehood (primarily the problems of regionalism) have noticeably reduced Russia’s authority in the international arena; thirdly, the struggle of internal political forces continues around the issue of the national and state interests of Russia. Despite this, the most important world problems (the Yugoslav crisis, Middle East problems, etc.) cannot be solved without the participation of Russia.

At the end of 1991 - beginning of 1992, the President of Russia came up with his first foreign policy initiatives. He officially stated that from now on Russian nuclear missiles are not aimed at US targets. In January 1993, in Moscow, the START-2 Treaty was concluded between Russia and the United States of America, providing for a mutual reduction by 2003 of the nuclear potential of the parties by two-thirds compared to the level established by the START-1 agreement.

Seeking a peaceful settlement of relations with Western countries, Russia withdrew its troops from the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, including the Baltic states. By 1995, more than 500 thousand military personnel, 12 thousand tanks, and a lot of other military equipment returned to Russia from East Germany alone. In May 1995, the Russian Federation, along with other states of the former USSR and the “socialist commonwealth,” joined the Partnership for Peace program proposed by the leadership of the NATO bloc. However, since then it has not been filled with specific content. Russia's participation in the Partnership for Peace program was rather symbolic and boiled down mainly to sending observers to joint exercises of other countries.

In May 1997, the Founding Act (FA) was signed between NATO and Russia, in which, after six months of negotiations, a concession was made to Russia and not only the “Danish-Norwegian model” was adopted, providing for the non-deployment of nuclear weapons on the territory of the new NATO member countries, but the bloc’s obligation to limit the presence of conventional armed forces there and the mutual obligation of the parties not to use force or threaten to use it are also recorded - this act is extremely important from an international legal point of view, but insufficient in moral and psychological terms.

Russia joined the International Monetary Fund, which strengthened its economic position. At the same time, it was admitted to the Council of Europe, whose competence includes issues of culture, human rights, environmental protection, and the resolution of interethnic conflict situations. It was given the opportunity to integrate into the world economy. As a result, trade and industrial-agrarian relations intensified between Russia, the United States, the countries of the Middle East and Latin America.

The development of relations with the Commonwealth of Independent States occupied an important place in the foreign policy activities of the Russian government. In 1993, the CIS included, in addition to Russia, eleven more states.

In turn, the Russian government seeks to maintain integration ties. On his initiative, an interstate committee of Commonwealth countries was created with its headquarters in Moscow. An agreement on collective security was concluded between Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and other states, and the charter of the CIS was developed and approved. At the same time, Russia’s interstate relations with the former CIS republics are not always favorable. There is still no consensus regarding the Black Sea Fleet, the Crimean Peninsula, the Russian-speaking population, territorial problems, etc. However, the Russian government pays constant attention to the issues of resolving the economic, political, and social problems of Russia and the CIS countries. His efforts are aimed at achieving stability and well-being of all peoples of the CIS.

Was it great in the 90s?! Author, are you stubborn?
1. An inspiring feeling of freedom.
What kind of freedom was missing before, to shit on the streets?
That “freedom” is shown very well in the film “Kill the Dragon”, the video is attached. In Nizhny Novgorod there was shooting at night, brothers shooting at each other. On the right the Kalash is scribbling, on the left they are shooting from the Makarov. Freedom is crap!
2. Easy money.
They wore shoes on the streets, we boys, less than 4-5 people did not go to Moscow, because at the stations and near the metro there were local groups of thugs, now called “gopniks”. Only they acted more brazenly and lawlessly, for impunity and, read above, freedom! Outright, low-quality leftist, low-quality expired products were sold in markets and stalls. Is easy money great?!
3. Imported goods.
Foreign junk poured into the market. Everyone rushed to buy televisions, VCRs, etc. A lot of fakes, a lot of Chinese crap. Was it great to ruin the country because of imported shit?
4. Everyone was in their place.
Everyone tried to earn as much as they could, because the delays in wages were terrible. I, an officer of the Russian Army, did not receive any salary for several months and dug copper cable at night because there was nothing to eat. Was I in the right place? During the day, the commanders instilled in us that we needed to protect the Motherland, and at night they themselves worked on loaders at the local factory, loading vodka. Because the family had to eat. The cops had no rights at all, but in the end they quickly realized and wrested their “business” from the bandits, at the same time greatly thinning their ranks. Were they in the right place too? Teachers went to collective farms, because even their meager salaries were not given, were they in the right place?
5. We had the funniest president in the world.
If this is a joke, then it is extremely unfortunate. When we watched drunken Borka jumping around the stage or “leading” the orchestra, we didn’t laugh, we were incredibly ashamed. He destroyed the army, destroyed the country, Pindosian “consultants” were allowed into strategic sites, enterprises were sold for pennies, the people lived in extreme poverty. Funny? We didn't find it funny at all.
6. People have hope.
What??! All my memories of the 90s are in shades of gray. There was terrible unemployment, no money was paid, hence there were so many “businessmen” who were trying to somehow make a living. There was terrible hopelessness, no light was visible. The reforms ruined everything at the root. One day we became impoverished, there were 6 thousand per family on the book and in one day it was no longer possible to buy anything with this money. I still remember the crazy Georgian who ran around the Kursky railway station with a suitcase of 500 rubles, throwing them around and yelling “why the fuck do I need them now?!” Hope?? In the USSR, everyone knew that after graduating from college he would go to work in his specialty, he knew that he would get an apartment, etc. There was STABILITY. In the 90s, no one knew what would happen tomorrow or even tonight.
7. Everyone was a millionaire.
What's fun? Money depreciated. Yes, we joked that we had become millionaires, but it was laughter through tears.
8. Opportunity to travel abroad.
Yeah. Everyone was able to personally verify that foreign stores actually sell more than 40 types of sausage. The mass of people, deciding that everyone was waiting for them over the hill, left the country. Only a few emerged as people. How many of these returned after 2000? All this anarchy that was happening in the country was not worth such pleasure.
9. Nostalgia for childhood and youth.
These are just memories of childhood. For example, we collected bottles, handed them over, went to VDNKh and, if the local “free boys” who “were in the right place” weren’t wearing shoes, we bought a couple of posters with the Bruces and the Schwartzes, or bought “Donald” or “Turbo” chewing gum. . The latter are less common because they cost 3 times more than “Donald”. And, if they didn’t give us shoes on the way back, they brought it all home.
10. “Fashionable” clothes.
Low quality junk from Turkey and China. Everything that was bright and colorful was fashionable. We, like the natives, who reacted to mirrors and beads, bought low-quality shit from Adadis, etc.
I don’t know a single person who experienced the “dashing 90s” who would like them to be repeated. No one! Young brats who didn’t get involved in this themselves, but read about that “romance”, don’t count.
The author is either a massive troll or a stubborn person. If this is such a joke, then I never understood it.
Now at least take a moment...