Main Command Reserve. On the issue of the creation and use of reserves at the headquarters of the Supreme High Command during the Great Patriotic War

Traditional symbolism in the service of the revival of Russia The work of the Second Congress at the very beginning was marked by an exciting event for every Russian - the National Anthem was played for the first time Russian Federation. The melody is based on the “Patriotic Song”

THE CASE OF THE “TACTICAL CENTER AND ORGANIZATIONS UNITED IN IT” (1919).

On September 23, 1919, the Cheka published an appeal “To all citizens of Soviet Russia!”, which reported the disclosure of the counter-revolutionary organization “National Center” (NC) and the execution of its leaders: member of the Central Committee of the Cadet Party N.N. Shchepkin, A.D. Alferova, N.A. Ogorodnikova and others (67 people in total). This was preceded by mass arrests in Petrograd and Moscow, which mainly affected representatives of the “bourgeois” intelligentsia - “the cadet (and near-cadet) public” (V.I. Lenin).

During the investigation into the NC case, information was received that a political association was operating in Moscow - the “Tactical Center” (TC), which directed the activities of various anti-Soviet organizations. In February - March 1920, the Cheka arrested a number of people on charges of involvement in the shopping center.

The investigation established that the shopping center included the National Center, the Union for the Revival of Russia and the Council of Public Figures.

The “Council of Public Figures” was elected in August 1917 at the Meeting of Public Figures - Members held in Moscow State Duma, cadets, industrialists, qualified zemstvo members, representatives of the profession, people of liberal professions, united by the desire to bring the war in unity with the allies to a victorious end, to counteract socialist trends in the field of economic life and restore a strong and orderly administrative system, the destruction of which the Provisional Government was accused of.

The first chairman of the “Council” was M.V. Rodzianko (since the fall of 1917 - former comrade of the Minister of Internal Affairs, qualified Zemstvo D.M. Shchepkin), the deputy - former. Comrade of the Minister of Internal Affairs of the Provisional Government S.M. Leontyev. Cadets P.N. Milyukov and V.A. Maklakov took an active part in its work.

After the October Revolution and the departure of M.V. Rodzianko, P.N. Milyukov, V.A. Maklakov and other members of the “Council” from Moscow, its activities ceased for some time and resumed in late January - early February 1918. Such prominent political figures and scientists as I.A. Ilyin, P.I. Novgorodtsev, N.A. Berdyaev and others took part in the meetings. The “Council” entered into close relations with the Central Committee of the Cadet Party, with the Moscow commercial and industrial environment , with landowning circles, with cooperators.

The main task of the “Council” was the exchange of information and the development of public opinion on issues of domestic and foreign policy.

Without having by real means political activity and struggle, the “Council” limited itself to drawing up and discussing various notes and memoranda on legislative issues in the event of the fall of Soviet power.

The last meeting of the “Council” took place at the end of June 1919.

The “Union for the Revival of Russia” arose in May 1918. Its founders were cadets N.I. Astrov, N.N. Shchepkin, N.M. Kishkin, D.I. Shakhovskoy, people's socialists V.V. Volk-Karachevsky, S.P. Melgunov, N.V. Tchaikovsky, V.A. Myakotin, A.A. Titov, A.V. Peshekhonov, Socialist Revolutionaries N.D. Avksentyev, I.I. Bunakov-Fondaminsky. Later it also included the Mensheviks V.O. Levitsky (Tsederbaum), A.N. Potresov and V.N. Rozanov, the Socialist Revolutionaries N.D. Kondratyev and S.L. Maslov.

The tasks of the “Union” included uniting representatives of political parties on the platform of non-recognition of the Brest-Litovsk Treaty and the restoration of Russia within the borders of 1914 (with the exception of Poland and Finland), the revival of Russian statehood, and the establishment of the directorial nature of power during the transition period (before the convening of the Constituent Assembly).

In the second half of the summer of 1918, V.A. Myakotin, A.A. Titov, A.V. Peshekhonov and N.V. Tchaikovsky left Moscow. The first three form the “Renaissance Union” in the south, and N.V. Tchaikovsky becomes the head of the Northern Coalition Government in Arkhangelsk (Supreme Administration of the Northern Region).

After the departure of these persons and the arrest of S.P. Melgunov, the activities of the “Union” faded away.

Simultaneously with the “Union for the Revival of Russia”, representatives of all non-socialist parties and groups (except for the extreme right), as well as a number of movements and groups (Old Believer communities, “Commercial and Industrial Committee”, zemstvo and cooperative institutions, etc.) formed the “National Center”, led by Zemstvo D.N. Shipov, who enjoyed great authority in public circles. D.N. Shipov soon stopped attending meetings of the NC and the organization was headed by N.N. Shchepkin. The leaders of the “NC” were cadets N.I. Astrov, V.A. Stepanov, P.B. Struve, M.M. Fedorov, O.P. Gerasimov, A.A. Cherven-Vodali, N.A. Ogorodnikov, Prince S.E. Trubetskoy. Professors N.K. Koltsov, S.A. Kotlyarevsky, M.S. Feldshtein took an active part in the activities of the NC.

The NC set its goals to restore a united and indivisible Russia; elimination of communist power, establishment of a one-man dictatorship (or directory) with emergency powers until the convening of the Constituent Assembly; joining forces with the allies to continue the war with Germany.

To establish contact with the Volunteer Army in the summer - autumn of 1918, N.I. Astrov, V.A. Stepanov, A.A. Cherven-Vodali and M.M. Fedorov were sent to Kuban.

Their departure somewhat changed the nature of the NC meetings, at which issues began to be explored more general program and individual reforms, draft laws are being developed. The organization of these works was entrusted to Professor S.A. Kotlyarevsky, who attracted professors B.D. Pletnev, L.B. Kafengauz and Ya.M. Bukshpan to them.

The program for the economic revival of Russia, which was developed by economists L.B. Kafengauz and Ya.M. Bukshpan, provided for the restoration of private entrepreneurship, the gradual denationalization and demonopolization of industry, the introduction of market relations, the development of farming, the attraction of foreign capital under state control, and an increase in exports finished products while reducing the export of raw materials, etc.

The head of the NC N.N. Shchepkin exercised political leadership and supplied the Moscow military organization known as the “Headquarters” with money received from Kolchak’s headquarters. Volunteer Army Moskovsky District" (liquidated in September 1919; 341 accused were involved in the case), which was headed by General N.N. Stogov, after his arrest - by General S.A. Kuznetsov and after the arrest of the latter - by Colonel V.V. Stupin. He also maintained contact with the resident of British intelligence P. Dukes and the headquarters of Denikin and Yudenich, supplying them with information about the internal, political, economic and military situation of Soviet Russia.

On August 22, 1919, the deputy head of the special department of the Cheka, I.P. Pavlunovsky, informed V.I. Lenin about the disclosure of the “National Center” and the operation being prepared by the Cheka to arrest its participants. Having read the report of I.P. Pavlunovsky, V.I. Lenin wrote a letter to F.E. Dzerzhinsky on August 23: “On the attached piece of paper, i.e. You need to pay special attention to this operation. We must seize it quickly and energetically and widely” (Lenin and the Cheka. M., 1987. pp. 204-205). In August 1919, N.N. Shchepkin and other members of the “National Center” were arrested.

After the arrest of N.N. Shchepkin and his closest assistants, as well as the liquidation military organization Moscow meetings of the NC were held irregularly, and ceased with the arrest of all its members in February 1920.

Direct participants in the creation of the “Union for the Revival of Russia” and the “National Center” were the most prominent representatives of the Cadet Party: N.N. Shchepkin, N.I. Astrov, V.A. Stepanov, P.B. Struve, D.I. Shakhovskoy, P. D. Dolgorukov and others.

On November 28, 1917, the Soviet government adopted a decree according to which “members of the leading institutions of the Cadet Party, as the party of enemies of the people,” were subject to arrest and trial by revolutionary tribunals. On the same day, members of the Central Committee of the Cadet Party F.F. Kokoshkin, A.I. Shingarev and other party leaders elected as deputies of the Constituent Assembly were arrested. In the spring - summer of 1918, another wave of arrests took place, in particular among members of the student faction (V.I. Kamernitsky, A.V. Kaluzhsky, etc.).

After these arrests and the departure to the south in the fall of 1918 of P.I. Novgorodtsev, N.I. Astrov, P.D. Dolgorukov and V.A. Stepanov, the activity of the Central Committee weakened somewhat. However, until its liquidation by the Cheka in 1919, the Central Committee continued to meet; D.D. Protopopov, P.A. Velikhov, N.N. Shchepkin, A.G. Khrushchov, N.M. took part in the meetings. Kishkin, A.A. Kizevetter, D.I. Shakhovskoy, M.V. Sabashnikov, M.G. Komissarov and others.

In the spring of 1919, a tactical agreement took place between the “NC”, the “Union for the Revival of Russia” and the “Council of Public Figures” and they, in order to tactically coordinate the opinions of Moscow political groups, formed the “Tactical Center”. Each organization included in the shopping center retained autonomy and isolation, as well as financial independence. Formally, the shopping center had no administrative powers.

The shopping center included N.N. Shchepkin, O.P. Gerasimov, S.E. Trubetskoy (from the NC), S.P. Melgunov (from the Union of Revival), D.M. Shchepkin and S.M. Leontyev ( from the Union of Public Figures).

The agreement was based on the following general platform: “restoration of the state unity of Russia;

The National Assembly, which must resolve the issue of the form of government in Russia; sole, dictatorial character, military power, as a necessary transitional form of power, restoring the elementary conditions of order in the country and allowing, on the basis of the recognized right of personal property, a number of urgent measures of a national nature.”

After the creation of the Trade Center, the political leadership of the Moscow military organization passed to him. To resolve the most important military issues, a special military commission was created consisting of N.N. Shchepkin, S.M. Leontyev, N.A. Ogorodnikov and, after the arrest of the latter, S.E. Trubetskoy.

The TC meetings were held by N.N. Shchepkin, S.M. Leontyev and S.P. Melgunov. Several times the shopping center met at the apartment of A.L. Tolstoy.

The investigation into the TC case ended in the summer of 1920. Even before the amnesty trial, the case was dropped against 19 accused: philosopher N.A. Berdyaev, industrialist S.I. Chetverikov, economists S.L. Maslov and L.B. Kafengauz, Prince D.I. Shakhovsky, historian A. A. Kizevetter, book publisher M.V. Sabashnikov, professors B.D. Pletnev, M.M. Novikov, members of the cadet party P.A. Velikhov, M.G. Komissarov and others. Died during the investigation O.P. Gerasimov , D.N. Shipov and V.V. Volk-Karachevsky.

On August 16-20, 1920, the case was considered by the Supreme Revolutionary Tribunal under the chairmanship of the deputy chairman of the Cheka, I.K. Ksenofontov. The tribunal found 19 leaders and the most active members of the “TC” guilty of “participating in cooperation in counter-revolutionary organizations that set themselves the goal of overthrowing the dictatorship of the proletariat, destroying the gains of the October Revolution and restoring the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie through an armed uprising and providing all possible assistance to Denikin, Kolchak, Yudenich and the Entente " and sentenced them to death. But, “taking into account their sincere repentance, more or less complete, sincere desire to work with Soviet power and take part in the restoration of the destroyed economy, as well as their decisive condemnation of armed White Guard uprisings and foreign intervention,” the tribunal decided to replace their execution with other punishments . Involved by the “Council” in developing issues local government member of the Glavtop board N.I. Vinogradsky and professor V.N. Muravyov were sentenced to 3 years in prison with release from punishment under an amnesty; members of the Central Committee of the Cadet Party Yu.G. Gubareva (Toporkova), N.M. Kishkin, D.D. Protopopov, S.A. Kotlyarevsky, professors N.K. Koltsov, V.S. Muralevich, M.S. Feldshtein, former member of the State Duma V.I. Stempkovsky - to a suspended prison sentence of 5 years; Mensheviks V.N. Rozanov, V.O. Levitsky (Tsederbaum), people's socialist G.V. Filatiev, economist N.D. Kondratiev, former magistrate I.I. Sheiman - to imprisonment in a concentration camp until the end civil war; D.M. Shchepkin, S.M. Leontyev, S.P. Melgunov, Prince S.E. Trubetskoy - to 10 years in prison.

Professors V.M. Ustinov and G.V. Sergievsky were found guilty of complicity (released under an amnesty); industrialist S.A. Morozov, geologist P.N. Kapterev, prominent Red Cross activist L.N. Khrushchev (sentenced to 3 years of suspended imprisonment); member of the Union of Russian Youth N.S. Puchkov, census taker E.I. Maleina and daughter of L.N. Tolstoy - A.L. Tolstoy (sentenced to imprisonment in a concentration camp for a period of 3 years).

Prince S.D. Urusov was found innocent and acquitted.

Persons who escaped arrest (cadets N.I. Astrov, P.B. Struve, P.I. Novgorodtsev, Prince P.D. Dolgorukov; Socialist Revolutionaries N.D. Avksentyev, A.A. Argunov, member of the Central Committee of the Socialist democratic group "Unity" G.A. Aleksinsky, people's socialists V.A. Myakotin, V.B. Stankevich, A.A. Titov, A.V. Peshekhonov, N.V. Tchaikovsky, etc.) were declared “enemies” people" and were sentenced to death in absentia.

On December 2, 1920, D.M. Shchepkin, S.E. Trubetskoy and S.M. Leontyev, who were imprisoned in the Taganskaya prison, turned to the All-Russian Central Executive Committee with the following statement (given in the original edition):

“The Government Report published on November 30 indicates that after the defeat of Wrangel, Bolohovich and Petlyura, White Guard organizations, including the Tactical Center, planned to commit terrorist acts against the leaders of the workers’ and peasants’ revolution and took a number of measures to carry out this plan.

The government, declaring the counter-revolutionary figures in its hands hostages, threatens to mercilessly exterminate them in the event of an attempt on the lives of the leaders of Soviet Russia. Meanwhile, the investigation into the case of the Tactical Center and at the trial of the Supreme Tribunal on August 16-20, 1920, it was established that the political association called the Tactical Center ceased to exist in the fall of 1919, and that it had nothing to do with terrorist organizations. The surviving members of the Tactical Center, to which we belong, have been in prison since February 1920.

The fact that neither the Tactical Center, which collapsed long before Wrangel’s appearance, nor its former members could have any relation to the now discovered terrorist organizations cannot be refuted by any evidence. Such a statement in the Government Report can only be explained by a misunderstanding.

Having always been opponents of terrorist acts as a method of political struggle, and considering them even now insane and disastrous for the country, we cannot but object to uniting us with those groups with which we have never had anything in common.

During the period of its fierce struggle, the revolution often uses merciless measures against its enemies, and we are ready to bear all the severe punishments for our actions and even ideas that the authorities have recognized as criminal. But extending to us responsibility for the actions of organizations with which we have never had any actual or ideological connection is a violation of the truth that is the same for everyone and always and which revolutionary legal consciousness cannot deny.

For us, prisoners in prison, deprived of the right and opportunity to defend ourselves, there is one way to turn to the body exercising Supreme Power in Russia.

Not in front of the sword already raised over us, which the authorities threaten to bring down in the event of insane terrorist attempts, but precisely now, when we are not yet talking about saving lives, we turn to the V.Ts.I.K. and we are waiting for the truth to be restored” (CA FSB RF. F.1. O clause 4. Por.668. L.1).

In 1921, all those convicted in this case were released under an amnesty.

Subsequently, the fate of many of them was tragic: P.A. Velikhov (1930), N.N. Vinogradsky (1931), S.M. Leontyev, D.M. Shchepkin, A.P. Morozov (1937), N. Y. Zhukovsky, N. D. Kondratyev, S. L. Maslov (1938), Y. M. Bukshpan, M. S. Feldshtein, S. A. Kotlyarevsky, D. I. Shakhovskoy (1939); V.O. Levitsky (Tsederbaum), V.S. Muralevich, S.A. Morozov, V.N. Muravyov died in places of serving their sentences; were again subjected to repression N.N. Loskutov, S.A. Studenetsky, P.N. Kapterev, M.V. Sabashnikov, B.D. Pletnev, A.A. Fedotov, L.B. Kafengauz, N.M. Kishkin , E.I. Maleina, N.S. Puchkov, G.V. Filatiev; were expelled administratively or emigrated N.A. Berdyaev, A.A. Kizevetter, S.E. Trubetskoy, M.M. Novikov, S.P. Melgunov, S.I. Chetverikov, A.L. Tolstaya, A. N.Potresov.

Mass arrests and searches carried out in connection with the TC case in September 1919 caused a wide resonance in the circles of the scientific and technical intelligentsia. A number of scientific and cultural institutions, famous public figures, scientists and writers petitioned the Soviet authorities for the release of those arrested. Among them is M. Gorky, who conveyed through the professor Military Medical Academy V.N. Tonkov’s letter to V.I. Lenin, in which, in particular, he wrote: “We, saving our skins, cut the heads of the people, destroy their brains.” On September 15, V.I. Lenin replied to M. Gorky: “I received Tonkov, and even before his reception and before your letter, we decided to appoint Kamenev and Bukharin to the Central Committee to check the arrest of bourgeois intellectuals of the near-cadet type and to release anyone possible [at a meeting of the Politburo The Central Committee of the RCP (b) on September 11, 1919 discussed the issue of arrests of “bourgeois” intellectuals and it was decided to invite F.E. Dzerzhinsky, N.I. Bukharin and L.B. Kamenev to review the cases of those arrested]. For it is clear to us that there were mistakes here too. It is also clear that, in general, the measure of arrest of the cadet (and near-cadet) public was necessary and correct... What a disaster, just think! What injustice! A few days or even weeks in prison for the intellectuals to prevent the beating of tens of thousands of workers and peasants!.. The intellectual forces of the workers and peasants are growing and strengthening in the struggle to overthrow the bourgeoisie and its accomplices, the intellectuals, the lackeys of capital, who imagine themselves to be the brains of the nation. In fact, this is not the brain, but a g...” (Lenin V.I. PSS. T. 51. P. 47-49).

Union for the Revival of Russia

An association of moderate-nationalist movements created by Dmitry Rogozin. Registered by the Ministry of Justice in December 1991, it declared itself as an active political organization in April 1992, when D. Rogozin, then vice-president of the Russian-American University, designated the Union for the Revival of Russia (SVR) as an association of “young leaders parties and movements of the center right." The creation of the SVR was attended by activists from the Constitutional Democratic Party of M. Astafiev, the Russian Christian Democratic Party of V. Aksyuchits, the Democratic Party of Russia N. Travkin, and the Social Democratic Party of Russia, who were dissatisfied with the state of affairs in their parties and considered it necessary to create a broader coalition. In addition to D. Rogozin, the organizational core of the SVR consisted of Moscow City Council deputy Andrei Savelyev and People's Deputy of Russia Oleg Plotnikov (Smena - New Politics faction). The name of the association was supposed to indicate continuity with the historical Union for the Revival of Russia - an anti-Bolshevik organization formed in 1918 by representatives of the parties of the Cadets, People's Socialists (ENS) and the Right Socialist Revolutionaries and which set as its task to support and lead a “broad national anti-Soviet movement” capable of overthrowing Soviet power and restore the state unity of Russia. The founding congress of the SVR took place on January 30, 1993. Two weeks earlier, at a press conference dedicated to the creation of the organizing committee of the congress, D. Rogozin determined the place of the SVR in the political spectrum - “somewhere between the Civil Union and the National Salvation Front” and promised that the SVR “ will not become a dwarf “couch” party with Dima Rogozin at its head. We will have no formal membership at all. Only employees of the apparatus." D. Rogozin was elected chairman of the SVR, co-chairmen were Sergei Pykhtin, O. Plotnikov and the chairman Russian Union young Christian democrats D. Antsyferov, executive secretary - A. Savelyev. In November 1992, the SVR took the first large-scale initiative - to sign the Civil Peace Charter, which would resolve the crisis in relations between the President and the Congress people's deputies. In the spring-summer of 2003, the SVR proposed its own draft of the Basic Law (author - S. Pykhtin), conducted an examination of the Strategic Offensive Arms Treaty (START-2), in which it assessed it as harmful to strategic security, and helped organize a visit to Russia by Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna, holds the conference “State-Legal Reform and the Future of Russia”. In August-October 2003, during the period of the most acute confrontation between President Boris Yeltsin and the Supreme Council, members of the SVR were actively involved in the conflict on the side of the latter: in August they created an analytical group on emergencies under the Supreme Economic Council of the Supreme Council, in September they tried to organize House of Soviets headquarters social movements, opposing the president’s “phase-by-stage constitutional reform.” In October 2003, the SVR was re-registered under the name “Revival Union”. At the same time, the Union of Revival became one of the founders of the electoral association “Fatherland”. The party list of “Fatherland” included D. Rogozin (fourth), S. Pykhtin (tenth), and deputy chairman of the Union of Revival Mikhail Bolotovsky (seventeenth). The “Fatherland” list did not collect the required 100 thousand signatures and was not registered. Activists of the Union of Revival reported that they collected about thirty thousand signatures from residents of neighboring countries, but the Central Election Commission did not accept or count them. Since 1994 the main political activity D. Rogozin and his supporters are transferred to the Congress of Russian Communities (CRO), and the SVR moves to the role of a party club, ideological and analytical center under the CRO. Adopted at the SVR conference in January 1994, the “Manifesto for the Revival of Russia” was approved by the KRO conference in the fall of 1994 as the basis for its ideology. Cooperation between the SVR and the KRO was interrupted in the spring of 1995 with the arrival of Yuri Skokov in the KRO, but was restored after D. Rogozin’s break with Yu. Skokov in 1996. During 1994-1995. in the SVR, in January 1994, the institution of co-chairs was first abolished - then D. Rogozin was again elected chairman, his deputies were D. Antsyferov, S. Pykhtin and A. Savelyev, then in August 1995 it was restored, but elected only one co-chairman, S. Pykhtina. Since 1996, SVR has been transformed into the Analytical SVR Center, headed by S. Pykhtin (director) and A. Savelyev ( scientific adviser), and at the end of 1998 - to the Russian Project Foundation (chairman of the board - Vladimir Popov). In 1997 – 1998 members of the SVR publish the magazine “Continent of Russia”, the official publication of the KRO, on the basis of which the magazine “Golden Lion” was later created.

The first and only president of the USSR Mikhail Gorbachev allowed the possibility of the emergence of a new union state within the former borders of one sixth of the land. In a long interview with TASS, dedicated to the 25th anniversary of the collapse of the Soviet Union, Gorbachev said that at one time he did everything to save the country.

“I defended the Union to the end. It was possible and necessary to reform and renew the Union,” said the ex-president, adding that he also had a share of responsibility, since he “did not break” in time with the “pack” that created the State Emergency Committee. According to Gorbachev, it was the August path that pushed the country towards collapse, and before that such a scenario could have been prevented.

Nevertheless, when asked by journalists whether the revival of the USSR is possible, Gorbachev answered this way: “There is no Soviet Union, but the Union is yes. I believe that there may be a new Union. Within the same boundaries and with the same composition, voluntarily.”

Today, the restoration of the Soviet Union within its former borders looks fantastic. Integration processes in the post-Soviet space under the leadership of Russia encountered severe opposition from the West, in particular, which provoked the Euromaidan in Ukraine, which for a long time separated this country from the Eurasian Economic Union.

Back in December 2012, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton directly stated that the United States intends to interfere with integration processes in the post-Soviet space. “Now steps are being taken to re-Sovietize the region. It will be called differently - the customs union, the Eurasian Union, and so on. But let's not be deceived. We know what the purpose of this is and we are trying to find effective ways slow it down or prevent it,” she said.

Despite this, integration processes in the post-Soviet space, although slowly, are progressing. The President of Kazakhstan was one of the first to voice the idea of ​​forming the Eurasian Union on the basis of a single economic space and joint defense policy. Nursultan Nazarbaev back in 1994. The following year, the leaders of Kazakhstan, Russia, Belarus, and a little later Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan signed the first agreement on the creation of the Customs Union. It became the prototype of the Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC), formed in 2001. Moldova, Ukraine and Armenia were not included in the organization, but were listed as observers.

In 2007, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Russia signed an agreement on the formation of the Customs Union, which became operational on January 1, 2010. Finally, in 2014, an agreement was signed in Astana on the creation of the Eurasian Economic Union, which today includes five countries - Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan. But it is obvious that there is still a very long way to go to recreate a union that could compare with the USSR.

And is this even possible, or is this the fantasy of the first and last president of the Soviet Union, who failed to save that country and dreams of its new incarnation?

“The restoration of the union on a different basis is already underway,” I am convinced Director of the Eurasian Communication Center Alexey Pilko.— Opposition is opposition, but the Eurasian Economic Union is developing. Common markets emerge and supranational legislation is adopted. Therefore, integration in the post-Soviet space in the form of an economic union is a reality.

“SP”: — And political?

“A close economic union may well be followed by some form of political integration.” It won't be Soviet Union in the form in which it existed. But there are chances that some post-Soviet republics will form a new union, and they are quite high. Moreover, these countries already depend on each other economically.

“SP”: — Is full integration possible in the post-Soviet space without Ukraine, Georgia, and other republics that have chosen the European vector of development?

— Ukraine, the Baltic states, Georgia are a separate issue. But the fact is that the Eurasian Economic Union does not contradict the European Union in any way. There is, for example, the Greater Eurasia project, based on the formation of a single continental economy. It involves interaction between the EU, EAEU, China and India.

Why should we think only about the Baltic states and Ukraine? If they do not join the union, this is not so significant. The goal is not to completely restore the borders of the USSR, but to create an economically effective association that will include elements of economic integration. This is a completely achievable goal.

“SP”: — Which countries may join the EAEU in the near future?

— This is probably Tajikistan and other Central Asian republics. I think that over time, relations between the EAEU and Azerbaijan will improve. The problem is not in the Baltic states or Ukraine itself, but in the far-right elites of these countries who are pursuing policies that run counter to their national interests. The Baltic states also benefit from an alliance with the EAEU. When a generation of politicians changes, I do not rule out that the Baltic states will find themselves in the same economic and political union with Russia.

Although I don't see anything wrong with not having a politically centralized single state. We are quite capable of integrating in new formats, which are to some extent more flexible and efficient.

Leading Researcher Institute of Social Sciences RANEPA Sergei Bespalov, on the contrary, views the prospect of integration in the post-Soviet space with skepticism.

— It is absolutely clear that neither the Soviet Union nor any other union entity will exist within its former borders. It's not just a matter of opposition to this integration from the outside external forces, especially the United States and its European allies. Within the post-Soviet space itself, integration and disintegration trends coexisted throughout these two and a half decades after the collapse of the USSR. Moreover, it is precisely the tendencies towards disintegration that have been and remain predominant.

"SP": - Why?

— Firstly, the fact is that for the political elites of post-Soviet states their independence has become a value higher order. Power for them turned out to be more important than maintaining a single economic complex and economic ties.

Secondly, over these 25 years a new generation has grown up, for whom the Soviet Union is history, and, given the ideological doctrines implanted in almost all former republics, history is not the brightest. Everywhere, even in Belarus and Kazakhstan, which are considered Russia’s closest allies, soviet history is not described in the best terms, while the newfound independence is presented as the main achievement.

“SP”: — But cooperation between the countries of the region is gradually developing?

— Cooperation is simply the interaction of countries on certain issues. True integration begins when states transfer part of their sovereign powers to supranational structures. Within the framework of first the Customs Union and then the Eurasian Economic Union, these principles were implemented for the first time. But, firstly, on a fairly narrow range of issues. And secondly, the leaders of the member countries still maintain fundamentally different positions on many issues and are not ready to expand the functions of these supranational structures. Therefore, it is difficult to call the prospects of this union rosy.

In addition, after Armenia and Kyrgyzstan joined the EAEU, the potential for expanding the integration grouping has practically been exhausted. Attempts to involve Ukraine in integration processes have shown their ineffectiveness. After the events of 2013–2014, this prospect may be buried forever.

“SP”: — Can a change of power in the United States contribute to the intensification of integration processes?

— External pressure — important factor, but it rather strengthens those disintegration tendencies that I have already mentioned. This pressure will likely ease with the arrival of the Donald Trump administration. But it is difficult to imagine that after this the situation in the post-Soviet space will suddenly change, and integration processes will sharply intensify.

“SP”: — Okay, let political integration be impossible now. But it would be economically beneficial for the post-Soviet republics to create Common Market, restore and develop connections with each other?

— Only economic integration turned out to be more or less effective. There are no other working integration associations in the post-Soviet space. The organization of a collective security treaty, which can be considered a military-political association, is still an incomplete group.

As for the economy, Ukraine itself has demonstrated that the elites are ready to do any damage to their own country by severing economic ties with post-Soviet republics in order to strengthen their sovereignty and, as a consequence, their power. Any integration and economic cooperation is possible for them only if it does not pose a threat to their power, even in the distant future. That is why full integration even within the EAEU is proceeding so slowly.

It is enough to recall the history of the development of the so-called Russian-Belarusian Union State. It all boiled down to the fact that the Belarusian authorities were not ready to create a single emission center and a national bank.

“SP”: — What if the elites change? After all, more pro-Russian leaders recently came to power in Bulgaria and Moldova...

— The change of elites occurs naturally, simply due to age factors. But the more relatively young people come to power, the less focused they are on unification processes in the post-Soviet space.

Igor Dodon relied on representatives of the old generation and residents of rural areas. As for the younger generation, both in Moldova and Ukraine, they, despite numerous disappointments, are aimed at European integration. It can be assumed that in some cases the new leaders will turn out to be more technocratic, less ideological and aimed at economic cooperation with the post-Soviet republics.

But they are unlikely to prioritize purely economic values. In addition, over the past decades there has already been a reorientation of economies. Russia remains an important partner, but its share in the structure of economic ties is declining, just as for Russia itself the role of the post-Soviet space is decreasing, and non-CIS countries are becoming increasingly important, even despite sanctions.

Perhaps, when the elites are confident that their sovereignty is not threatened, they will begin to be more favorable towards in-depth cooperation in certain areas. But to say, as Mikhail Gorbachev did, that a new union will be formed within the borders of the USSR is an unfounded assumption.

Simultaneously with the emergence of the reform movement, the first revolutionary political organization was created - the “China Revival Union”.

This organization united mainly representatives of the national bourgeoisie and the bourgeois intelligentsia of Southern China, in whose economy capitalist relations were relatively more developed than in the North.

Unlike the reformers, she set as her goal the armed overthrow of the Manchu monarchy. The leader of the China Renaissance Alliance was Sun Yat-sen.

The great Chinese democratic revolutionary Sun Yat-sen, a doctor by profession, came from a poor peasant family living in the village of Cuihep, Guangdong Province.

During his student years, Sun Yat-sen became acquainted with the ideas and activities of the secret anti-Manchu society “Heaven and Earth” and rallied a group of patriotic students around himself.

Sun Yat-sen deliberately chose for himself medical profession, because he believed that she was giving good opportunity to disguise revolutionary activities.

In the summer of 1894, Sun Yat-sen traveled to Tianjin, hoping to personally meet with the governor of the Zhili (capital) province, Li Hong-chang, to whom he sent a lengthy draft of reforms in the field of economics, politics and culture; their implementation would, in his opinion, make it possible to transform China into a strong state independent of foreigners.

However, during a trip to the North, Sun Yat-sen saw with his own eyes the corruption and rottenness of the government apparatus and became convinced that Li Hong-chang and other court dignitaries were sworn enemies of progress.

In the fall of 1894, Sun Yat-sen left for Honolulu, where he began working among Chinese emigrants. Here he created the “China Revival Union”. At the beginning of 1895, Sun Yat-sen returned to his homeland with a deep conviction of the need for an armed struggle to overthrow the Manchu monarchy.

Upon his return to South China, Sun Yat-sen began to create a branch of the "China Renaissance Union".

Since reformist ideas were widespread among the Chinese intelligentsia at that time, Sun Yat-sen was unable to attract a large number of members to his “Union.”

Sun Yat-sen did not yet understand the importance of the participation of the broad masses in the uprising and counted on the fact that the people would spontaneously join any anti-Manchu movement.

Therefore, the “Union” focused all its attention on the fight against the Manchu government, without calling on the people to fight all the feudal forces and the foreign capitalists who supported them. Moreover, Sun Yat-sen was then still inclined to idealize the attitude of the capitalist powers towards China.

The first uprising prepared by the “Union,” scheduled for October 26, 1895 in Guangzhou, failed due to the extremely narrow circle of participants and their lack of a mass base. Sun Yat-sen and some other members of the "Union" were forced to emigrate abroad.

The Manchu authorities promised a large reward for the capture and extradition of Sun Yat-sen.