The emergence in recent years in the academic literature on history of Russia (Fatherland) in our country dotted discernible, but more often repeated attempts to introduce into the consciousness of students an opinion about the prominent role of the Mongol Empire in the civilized development of Russia causes the question: what is it – lack of knowledge of national and world history or its revision?
History doesn’t know subjunctive mood and the accomplished cannot be changed. But 20 years ago the country could choose the different path. And then, when the feeling that we lost the way was intensifying, it was not late to get back on the right track. The Russians, as is known, are strong hindsight. But this time it refused us, and we were stubbornly walking toward our death, not willing to learn from own mistakes committed/wp-content/mag_archive/?mid=109&cid=2544#article_2544Gaidar, market-oriented reforms, Gorbachev, shock therapy, privatization methods.
When deciding on the intervention of Russia in the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict in August 2008, Medvedev and Putin faced a difficult choice: not to interfere meant “losing a face”, to allow destabilization in the whole Caucasus, but to defend South Ossetia meant to take on a confrontation with the United States and NATO.
It is imperative that Russia is rich with creative, initiative people, ready to realize these opportunities. It isn’t their fault that the overall stagnant situation, the dominance of bureaucrats, conservative party diktat often did not allow them to realize the most ambitious ideas.
Young economists the Yeltsin government were forced to play the role of the counter-revolution demons, breaking the dead Soviet economy before the very eyes of amazed people.
Historical analogies and parallels are dangerous, as conditions of development are radically changing. Yet I would run risk to call the post-crisis period in the development of new Russia – 2010-2011 and the number of successive years – the new times of stagnation.
Developments in the socialist camp were evolving so rapidly that even the German initiatives, about which we informed the top leadership, could have soon become worthless and fallen away. But to probe the soil to assess the seriousness and reality of the proposals would be at that time – at the end of 1989 – rather expedient.
Two decades have passed after reunification of Germany. The Soviet Union and its president Mikhail Gorbachev played a leading role in realization of the German people aspirations, and they are grateful to us for it. However, this epoch-making event in the history of European civilization has caused rather diverse consequences for its participants, which still excite historians and politicians, and give rise to disputes.