Reflections on Culture and National Identity

Recently, I happened to hear a respected lady, a State Duma deputy from the Communist Party (KPRF), who seems to be an actress, discussing the topic of culture on TV. She claimed that nowadays, there is culture for the rich and culture for the poor. I believe that when we discuss cultural issues, we need to be more attentive.

The Soviet Approach to National Identity and Culture

In Soviet times, we agreed that nationality did not matter in the Soviet Union; we were all Soviet. Our culture was socialist in content. The moral, ethical norms, language, religion, and spiritual world that each nation had developed over centuries were considered irrelevant to the Soviet system. This disregard for national cultures brought about severe consequences after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I was born and grew up under Soviet rule, and it really seemed to us that nationality, customs, and traditions were relics of the past. We were all one Soviet people. The Communist Party, at its 22nd Congress, set the task of educating a new generation of people who would live in communism, free from national traits, culture, and traditions, with a communist culture and Marxist-Leninist ideology.

Lessons from the 1990s

The 1990s opened my eyes to many things. Our dismissive attitude towards the national cultures of the Soviet Union’s peoples, our lack of understanding of the spiritual world of Uzbeks, Kyrgyz, Balts, Caucasians, and others, resulted in significant strife and animosity among the nations. The turmoil of the 1990s saw many Russians in the Soviet republics and even autonomous regions of the RSFSR forced to leave Russia. This was due to the fact that many Russians, having lived in these republics for decades, did not know the local languages. Soviet rule did not emphasize learning local languages or cultures, as Russian was the state language across all republics.

Consider Soviet history textbooks. They are called "History of the USSR," yet they barely cover the history of the union republics, sometimes only a few lines in small print. We lived together, fought together in WWII, and built grand communist projects, yet we knew little about each other. Central television and radio broadcasts rarely featured content about the national cultures of the Soviet republics. Only during cultural weeks dedicated to these republics did such content appear, and in the later years, even that practice ceased.

The Current Media Landscape

Today, television is dominated by figures like Pugacheva and her family, and a few others who claim to be stars, though their light is rather dim. If only Yeltsin had studied the history and culture of the Chechens before making his disastrous decision to send tanks to Grozny, he might not have taken such a reckless step that resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands and severe hardship for millions. I recommend that those dealing with the North Caucasus study the works of the Russian military historian Potto V.A., as they offer many answers to today’s questions.

The current terrorist attacks in our metro are a continuation of the same war that began in 1994. The responsibility for these inhumane attacks lies with those buried with great honors in Novodevichy Cemetery. I understand the anxiety of Moscow residents and others about what the future holds. Can one safely take the metro to work or school tomorrow? The way out is to respect other people's cultures. Instead of always showcasing celebrities like Galikin, central television could feature the lives and cultures of people from the Caucasus. We should highlight their culture, including their writers, musicians, and artists, and present their way of life and ethnography. The Caucasians have made many positive contributions to Russia, yet we hear only negativity.

Bridging Cultural Gaps

We should show performances from dancers in Chechnya, Kabardino-Balkaria, Dagestan, and Ossetia on central television. By showcasing their culture to all of Russia, perhaps even those who resort to extremism might reconsider their actions. While it is true that Caucasians sometimes act inappropriately, this often stems from a defensive reaction due to feeling unappreciated and disrespected. They should also learn the language and culture of the people they live among. Mass media plays a significant role here. Xenophobia leads to bloodshed and destruction; it is an axiom.

Personal Reflection

I am also a Highlander, an Ossetian. I have lived among Russians for over 60 years and have never felt that I was treated unfairly. I converse with Russians as equals because I know Russian culture as well as any Russian. Russian writers have greatly expanded my worldview and improved my understanding of the environment. I have always admired Russian classical and folk music, and nothing compares to Russian painting. But what is most important is that the Russian people, by protecting my people, saved them from complete annihilation. To understand how deeply connected we are, one must know the history of Russia and their own people. The best way to get to know each other is through increased cultural exchange. This is the key to overcoming hostile relations.

Yes, I am a veteran of the Soviet Army. I'm in my ninety-fourth year, a retired colonel. In 1966, I graduated with a red diploma in history from Tbilisi University by correspondence. I mention this not to boast, but so that those reading my work know who is writing. Having lived through the Great Patriotic War as a child and teenager, and having served throughout the Cold War in uniform, I believe I have the right to assess the current political situation of the country I defended—not from an office, but on the front lines. I was an air defense officer and a participant in the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962-63. Readers of my work can likely imagine the moral, political, ethical, psychological, and economic challenges I've faced over my long life.

Reflections on Leadership and Democracy

I have outlived all the leaders of the Soviet Union and Russia except for Lenin and the current leader of Russia, who clings to power like a tick and refuses to give it up. I probably won't outlive him. He is an interesting personality, born in 1952, and grew up during the flourishing of Khrushchev's era. I remember this period well—a decade when the country was led by an utterly illiterate and uncultured person, who was later replaced by a land surveyor by profession. And then, who hasn't led the Soviet Union and Russia? Even a person heavily afflicted by alcoholism was elected by Russians—quite democratically!

I envy Americans when I watch their elections unfold, a real contest among candidates for the presidency. They try to speak in every state, persuading voters that their program is better than their competitor's. As for this one, I never once heard his campaign speeches. He's elected by decree from above. The State Duma is a puppet organization for him. The presidential term was extended to six years, and the constitution was changed so he could remain president for life. This begs the question: Is it a coincidence that such an element became the head of the state? Would someone else be better? No! It could have been even worse. And it's not just about him personally.

Education and Upbringing in the Soviet Era

In the Soviet Union, people's upbringing was conducted within the framework of Marxist-Leninist theory. I'm not saying whether this theory was good or bad—any theory has its flaws. But there was some foundation for an educational theory. The Great Patriotic War proved the effectiveness of such upbringing. It's no coincidence they said that our tenth graders won the war. I remember well the love for the Motherland among Soviet people. I myself wanted to go to the front. I was 11 years old when the war began.

However, from the late fifties, this once powerful educational tool began to fade. Attempts to introduce something fresh, new, and wise from the world's great minds were suppressed as anti-Soviet and bourgeois. This work doesn't allow for a detailed exposition of all that negatively impacted the upbringing of the youth. I can only say that, overall, the upbringing of youth from the fifties onwards got worse and worse, as we clearly saw from the late eighties. This is clear evidence of how our youth were raised in the latter half of the twentieth century.

Reflections on the Past

We all went through the tumultuous nineties—youth nurtured since the fifties. When the CPSU at congresses solemnly declared the complete victory of socialism, Khrushchev was already starting to build communism in our country. Meanwhile, people asked, "Why do we, the victors over fascism, live worse than the former fascists?" There was no answer. This led to the tragic collapse of such a vast state, in which our Soviet youth, born in the latter half of the past century, played a decisive role. I remember the second half of the last century well, having served in the Soviet army from 1950 to 1981.

In this candid narrative, the author shares personal memories of life in the Soviet Union, starting from a poor childhood in the 1930s and reflecting on the country's dissolution in 1991. He recounts how his worldview was shaped by Soviet ideology, the heroes of that era, and the events of the Great Patriotic War. Reflecting on the hardships and joys, the author considers the role of the Communist Party and leaders like Stalin, and their impact on the lives of ordinary people. This text provides an invaluable insider’s perspective on an era that left an indelible mark on history and the lives of millions.

Having lived many years in this world, I can't help but compare different periods of my life. My generation has witnessed many turbulent political and economic events. Each era provided its own spiritual nourishment and shaped our worldview. I believe that a person's worldview is mainly formed by the prevailing ideology in society during their most active years of learning about the world. From personal experience, I think that a person's views on life, their relationships with the world, and their key character traits are formed by the age of twenty. Of course, changes in views can happen later, but only under significant pressure from circumstances. My reflections here are based on personal experience, so they are not absolute truths.

I was born into a very poor family. My mother was a maid in a wealthy household, and my father was a chimney sweep. When I was born, my father was sent into exile for seven years, so I first saw him at the age of seven. Unfortunately, he made my childhood the hardest period of my life, which also influenced my character development. I remember my childhood from the age of four. We lived in a semi-basement room: my mother, my brother, who was two years older than me, and I. The two-story house stood isolated from other houses. The only neighbor was a small house nearby, where a caretaker, Uncle Viktor, lived with his daughter, who was my age and my playmate.

Uncle Viktor taught me to read early on, and by the age of four, I could read, forming some kind of worldview. I would go upstairs, see empty rooms, and scattered pages of books on the floor. I remember a hardcover book with torn pages and a very small font, or perhaps it was in Russian, which I couldn't read, but the portraits were smeared with ink. I was puzzled by why the ink was spilled in the book. I read a book in a soft cover with large print called "How Our Grandfathers Lived and Fought." This memory also stuck with me and possibly began shaping my pro-Soviet worldview.

In the 1930s, families like ours didn't subscribe to any periodicals, and not every place had a radio, but we still knew what was happening in the country. We knew about polar explorers, pilots, the border guard Karatsupa and his dog, and more. We were proud of them. There was no mention of the repressions, but there was great love for Stalin, Beria, Voroshilov, and others. In my imagination, Stalin was an old and very kind grandfather, while Voroshilov was a strong, athletic young man, the best marksman. Our country was the best in the world, with no "Mr. Twisters." We loved black people, while others did not. We protected the children of Spain while others killed them. We had the strongest army, with the kindest and bravest soldiers. We also had the kindest man in the world, Grandpa Lenin. Our country was the largest and most beautiful. We all adored Chapaev, always hoping he'd make it to the shore in the movies. The villains who didn't love us or our country had to be defeated. This was the spiritual nourishment that shaped our worldview.

Naturally, we loved the Soviet government and homeland, which led to the heroic deeds of Soviet people during the Great Patriotic War. This kind of spiritual nourishment didn't affect everyone equally, but tens of millions experienced the reality of building socialism based on internal resources, mainly at the expense of agriculture. The war clearly showed this too.

As for me, I belonged to the majority who believed in what was written in the press and said on the radio. We lived very poorly, but we were promised a bright future, and we believed in it. I believed in Stalin, who was, for me, the wisest and kindest person. I had doubts about his military genius only when the Germans reached Stalingrad. Until then, I justified our retreat as a strategy to lure the Germans in. But Stalingrad was something different. The victory there erased all my doubts, and Stalin was once again my genius leader.

I celebrated Victory Day in the center of Tbilisi, walking along Rustaveli Avenue with a classmate, discussing the future. At almost 15 years old, I was optimistic about a freer and happier life post-war. This discussion later made me wonder why I emphasized future freedom so much, perhaps sensing that our life wasn't truly free.

In the summer of 1945, we were asked to leave the school where we had lived for about two years and moved to Vladikavkaz for better living conditions. It wasn't easy, and Stalin's praise was widespread, especially in Georgia. When the Germans approached the Caucasus Mountains, Georgians called Stalin a "bastard Ossetian," but after the victory, he became the great son of Georgia again. Films were released, portraying Stalin as the mastermind behind the October Revolution, with Lenin merely present. Victories in the Civil War and against foreign interventionists were attributed to Stalin's leadership.

In the late 1940s, the fight against cosmopolitanism began. It was forbidden to mention foreign pioneers in physics or chemistry lessons without first acknowledging our scientists. People began doubting socialism after seeing how others lived under "decaying" capitalism. This restrictive atmosphere stifled free thought. Although I remained a Leninist and Stalinist, doubt started creeping in. The film "The Fall of Berlin," which deified Stalin, particularly disturbed me. The final scenes showed the country venerating Stalin to an extreme level. This made me realize the extent of sycophancy, which later generations criticized.

Despite everything, I maintained my belief that the Soviet government was the best in the world and respected the Communist Party. I thought individuals could make mistakes, but the party never did. All our achievements were credited to the party. When I joined the army, I applied to join the party. Although initially unsuccessful, I later became a candidate member in 1956 and a full member in 1957. My faith in the party persisted for a long time, but from the late 1970s, I started having significant doubts.

By the 1950s, my admiration for Stalin had faded. Reading his works on linguistics and economics didn't impress me, even though we were made to admire and summarize them. I couldn't see the genius in them, unlike others. In Marxism-Leninism classes, we had to praise his works, but I felt that long-serving leaders became a hindrance to the country's progress. This view was repeatedly confirmed in practice.

For instance, Putin, with all his experience, has become an obstacle to further development. Wise people set term limits for leadership to prevent dictatorial tendencies. Since 1996, there haven't been genuine elections in our country. I envy how "decaying" America conducts elections, whereas we have candidates like Sobchak from a reality show, which is embarrassing.

Eventually, everyone dies, including Stalin. With no suitable successor, power struggles ensued, often won by the most cunning and unscrupulous individuals. This happened in our country, leading to a leader with minimal education ruling a nuclear-powered nation.

The 1950s marked the beginning of the Soviet Union's decline, though the signs were not yet visible. Fear, a powerful tool for the country's construction, began to fade. The 20th Party Congress shook the foundations of Marxism-Leninism. Before the Congress, Stalin was seen as the sole correct interpreter of Marxism-Leninism, but he was revealed to be a criminal. This caused a serious split in the understanding of socialism.

This ideological shift also affected me. Although I remained loyal to the party and socialism, the criticism of Stalin felt personal, as he was my fellow countryman. Even now, I find it unpleasant to hear criticisms of Stalin, despite their validity. The power struggles of the late 1950s showed me that the top leaders were ordinary people, not semi-gods.

As a political worker, I read a lot of party literature, repeatedly going through Lenin's works. I admired Lenin's logical reasoning but noticed he could logically refute his own arguments in different writings. I remained a Marxist because, as a political worker in the Soviet Army, it was my duty to uphold socialism.

However, discrepancies between our teachings and reality became evident. Literature criticizing Stalinism often veiled anti-Soviet ideology, which I had to analyze. After the 20th Congress, my firm belief in Marxist-Leninist theory wavered. Later, I concluded that the 20th Congress initiated the collapse of the Soviet Union. Living under socialism for 61 years, I don't believe it was entirely a bad system. At least, it didn't allow for the blatant exploitation seen today.

Our leadership lacked economic knowledge and international trade expertise. We isolated ourselves ideologically and didn't learn from capitalists. Khrushchev's ambitious goals to surpass America by 1970 were unrealistic. By 1970, we hadn't achieved much, and Brezhnev's leadership further disillusioned me with its stagnation and corruption.

The worsening economic situation, empty stores, and unfulfilled promises made it hard to believe in building communism. After retiring from the army, I saw the gap between our ideology and practical life, leading to the events of 1991.

This article delves into the complex historical and contemporary relationships between Russia and the former Soviet republics. It reflects on the impact of the Soviet Union's collapse, the rise of nationalism, and the resulting tensions and conflicts. The author, a retired colonel, emphasizes the importance of understanding historical ties, addressing national issues with respect, and fostering diplomatic efforts to rebuild and strengthen friendships.

The end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century were filled with events that could have severe consequences for the peoples of the former Soviet Union. Undoubtedly, the collapse of the Soviet Union was a tragedy for tens of millions of people who had to drastically change their way of life, becoming refugees, victims of national conflicts, and losing loved ones.

The Collapse of the Soviet Union

I will not discuss whether the collapse of such a vast and powerful country was objectively justified. Perhaps the union republics needed to become independent. After all, they had the right to do so. But why couldn't this be done in a civilized, respectful manner, honoring the dignity of all peoples involved? We built this country together with great effort. We shed blood together defending the country and liberating the peoples of Eastern Europe from fascism. No nationality or people living in the former Soviet Union has sons who did not lie on the battlefield, defending the honor and dignity of our Motherland.

The Lost Friendship

Respecting the blood shed together by the older generation of our peoples, we should have maintained friendship and mutual respect among the citizens of the former great country. But where has the friendship of the peoples of the USSR gone, the source of our victories and might? Why is there now national discord, enmity, hatred, and bloody conflicts instead of friendship? A normal Soviet person could never have imagined that a time would come when a Georgian would shoot at a Russian, and vice versa! That Ukrainian Slavs would shoot down Russian planes over the Caucasus with missiles. I am not even talking about the Georgian-Ossetian conflict.

A Historian's Perspective

Where did all this come from? How did we come to a point where a museum of Russian occupation was created in Tbilisi, Georgia? It is said that Russia occupied Georgia for 200 years. I cannot comprehend this. I am an Ossetian who grew up in Tbilisi. I graduated from a Georgian school and then from the history department at Tbilisi University. As a historian, I have read and know under what circumstances Georgia joined Russia and who initiated this act. I would recommend that those who organized this so-called museum reread the history of Georgia, especially the conditions of the second half of the 18th century. It would not hurt these "patriots" to remember what happened in Tbilisi in 1795 and what Aga Mohammad Khan did, and what condition all of Eastern Georgia was in. Tbilisi was burned and destroyed, and the same fate befell all of Eastern Georgia. King Erekle II hid in the mountains. It would not hurt these gentlemen to remember who saved Georgia from complete destruction by the wild horde of Omar Khan in 1800. A small Russian force under the command of General Lazarev defeated the 20,000-strong detachment of Omar Khan, which was on its way to destroy Tbilisi. In 1803, the Queen of Georgia killed General Lazarev, the savior of Georgia, with a dagger. Perhaps these "patriots" should remember who shed blood to return the beautiful region of Adjara to Georgia. Was it the Americans, whom the Georgian elite now so love? No, it was the Russian soldier who returned Adjara to Georgia. I had the opportunity to serve in Adjara. An interesting fact is that the Adjarians have Georgian surnames but Muslim names. The population is half Christian and half Muslim. If Russia had not taken Georgia under its protectorate, Georgia would likely not have remained Georgia. Those who run the country should at least know the history of this country and draw the right conclusions from it.

Misunderstanding Occupation

Of course, it cannot be said that everything went smoothly and without any excesses. There were those who were dissatisfied with being subordinated to Tsarist Russia. Such a complex process could not have passed without pain. But the main thing was done: the people, who have a rich culture and have given the world Shota Rustaveli, Yakob Tsurtaveli, Sulkhan-Saba Orbeliani, Akaki Tsereteli, and Vakhtang Chabukiani, among others, preserved their dignity and made a worthy contribution to world culture.

As for the "occupation" of Georgia by Russia, our country, unfortunately, knows all too well what occupation is. Therefore, to use such terms towards Russia is both offensive to Russia and shows that the person using such a term has never experienced real occupation. Moreover, it indicates a complete lack of knowledge of Russian history. Throughout its existence, Russia has never occupied any country. However, Russia has had to liberate other countries from foreign occupation multiple times.

Personal Experiences

As an officer in the Soviet Army, I have been to different corners of our vast country and seen firsthand how our Soviet people lived. I served in Tiksi, Krasnoyarsk, Azerbaijan, Georgia, and so on. I remember very well that in Krasnoyarsk and Novosibirsk, by the late 1960s, there were difficulties with meat products. From 1970, I served in the Moscow region and saw how all of central Russia traveled to Moscow for meat products. Once, on a business trip to Borovsk, Kaluga Oblast, I entered a store and saw only sprats in tomato sauce. That was all the food available. At that time, I regularly went on leave to my relatives in Tbilisi every year. The situation was entirely different there, with plenty of meat products. In Tbilisi, for a Georgian to buy frozen meat was considered bad form. Meat had to be fresh and from Russia. After all, Georgia never provided for itself with food products. Meat, dairy products, cereals—all came from Russia. Remarkable! What kind of "occupiers" are these who take from their own people and send to the "occupied"? It would be good to have more such "occupiers." Now, there are no "occupiers" there. Instead, "kind uncles," the Americans, have arrived. What do we see? My relatives, pensioners, receive a pension of 75-80 lari, which is about 35-40 dollars. A kilogram of meat costs 13-14 lari. Undoubtedly, during Soviet times, Georgians, especially Georgian peasants, lived ten times better and wealthier than a peasant in the Tambov region. In 1989, I attended a wedding in a Georgian peasant family. It is unlikely that any Russian peasant could set such a table.

National Questions Ignored

And yet, where does such malice and enmity towards everything Russian in Georgia come from? Unfortunately, practice shows that this is not only the case in Georgia. One of the main reasons for such a state of affairs, in my opinion, is that during Soviet times, not enough attention was paid to national issues. We convinced ourselves too strongly that we had unbreakable friendship among nations. We stopped thinking about the fact that each people has some unique qualities inherent only to them, developed by their history. We began to say that in the era of "developed socialism," the national question lost its relevance altogether. We were all Soviet people, and our nationality was Soviet. We reached such absurdity in our patriotic slogans and political speeches. In reality, this political blindness regarding national issues had severe consequences. I will give an example from Georgia. In February 1956, the famous 20th Congress of the CPSU took place, where Khrushchev exposed the cult of Stalin's personality. On March 5, almost immediately after the congress, on the day of Stalin's death, the Central Committee of the CPSU sent instructions to all republics, prohibiting the population from visiting Stalin's monuments and laying flowers on the day of his death. Such instructions were sent to all educational institutions, enterprises, and organizations in Georgia. A more foolish and provocative instruction for Georgia was hard to imagine. Maybe in the Vologda region, such a document could have been perceived more or less neutrally, but sending it to Georgia was akin to detonating an atomic bomb. Perhaps no one planned to visit Stalin's monument on his death anniversary, but this document caused a storm of indignation in Georgia, especially in Tbilisi. On March 5, the entire population of Tbilisi, from young to old, with flowers and wreaths, went to Stalin's monument on the embankment of the Kura River. A spontaneous rally emerged. Anti-Russian and anti-Soviet banners appeared. The crowd surged to Rustaveli Avenue to seize the central telegraph and radio stations. The "Action Committee" was formed from the rally's activists. The "Action Committee" declared the main demands to the Soviet Government at the rally:

• Abolish the Communist Party of Georgia
• Georgia withdraws from the Soviet Union
• Remove Soviet Armed Forces from Georgia
• Georgia becomes an allied state with Turkey
• Georgia joins NATO They say the Kura River turned red from these demands. All of this was told to me by my Georgian friends when I visited them on leave in 1956, and they advised me not to walk around in military uniform. One of the active members of this "Action Committee" was the 17-year-old son of the famous Georgian writer Konstantine Gamsakhurdia, Zviad Gamsakhurdia, who had a pathological hatred for everything Soviet, Russian, and Ossetian.

Rise of Nationalism

In the 1960s, he became a human rights activist, which in those years was synonymous with anti-Sovietism. In the 1970s, he was imprisoned for his active anti-Soviet activities but was released early under the pressure of the Georgian artistic community. I watched his speech on central television, where he acknowledged his political errors and promised not to engage in anti-Soviet activities anymore. However, the wolf swore off sheep-stealing. In April 1989, he organized an anti-Soviet rally in Tbilisi, during which 18 women were trampled to death. Later, a commission led by the "democrat" Sobchak blamed our soldiers for this tragedy. I served in our army for 31 years and I know our soldiers well. I will never believe that our soldier could beat a woman with a shovel. If they were to beat someone, they would target those who attacked and mocked them. But the soldiers did not respond to the provocative actions of the Georgians.

Georgia in the Hands of Nationalists

In August 1989, I visited my relatives in Tbilisi. Having some free time, I decided to take a walk around Tbilisi. Near Rustaveli Avenue, there is a small park. The entire park was plastered with "dazibao" (big-character posters) in Georgian. When I started reading these proclamations, my hair stood on end. As a political worker by profession, the goals and tasks of those who composed and posted these papers were clear to me. But I was surprised that these anti-Soviet, anti-Russian posters were freely displayed all over Tbilisi, and no one was removing them. And what about the posters? I read the Georgian press. The entire press, both official and yellow, was thoroughly imbued with anti-Soviet and anti-Russian sentiment. And this was still during Soviet power and the existence of the Soviet Union! By 1989, all actual power in Georgia was in the hands of Zviad Gamsakhurdia. Officially, he held no state position, but all government bodies followed his orders. His main task, as we saw in 1956, was to separate Georgia from Russia, to withdraw from the Soviet Union. All anti-Soviet and anti-Russian propaganda in the press was based on a distorted and false presentation of the events of April 9, which he himself had organized. Using the fact of the death of 18 women during the dispersal of the rally on April 9, Gamsakhurdia organized an election campaign and in 1990 became the first president of much-suffering Georgia. He became president, but besides criticizing everything Soviet, he knew nothing else. It so happened that in 1990 and 1991, my wife and I went to Tsqaltubo for the waters, and I had the opportunity to observe political events in Georgia.

Leadership Challenges

Who was Gamsakhurdia? A philologist. Did he know anything about how to govern a state, especially in such a difficult period? Of course not. Did he have a well-founded economic program for further developing Georgia? No. He replaced his incompetence in state governance with "patriotic" slogans. Someone said that patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels. This was precisely the case. When Hitler came to power, within two years he declared Jews a second-class people. Gamsakhurdia didn't wait that long. He immediately divided the population of Georgia into those deprived of all civil and political rights. The category of "non-Georgians" first included Russians and Ossetians. Ascending the throne, Gamsakhurdia first abolished the South Ossetian Autonomous Region by his decree in 1990, even before the collapse of the Soviet Union. In November 1989, Gamsakhurdia organized a march of Georgian nationalists to Tskhinvali with a 50,000-strong contingent. Soviet Armed Forces and Ossetian militias blocked their way before they reached the city. They were not allowed to pass. It is frightening to imagine what would have happened in Tskhinvali if the 50,000-strong frenzied crowd of fanatics had entered the city, whose population barely reached 40,000 at the time.

Georgian-Ossetian Conflict

I have a document. This document was created when the Georgian fanatics' crowd couldn't break into Tskhinvali. It is called "The Appeal of the Headquarters of National Security of Georgia to the Ossetians Living in Tskhinvali," signed, of course, by Gamsakhurdia. A more disgusting and insulting document for the Ossetian people is hard to imagine. The problem is that this ideology of Georgian fascism, expressed in this appeal, finds quite broad support among the ruling elite of Georgia and gradually penetrates all layers of Georgian society. I will allow myself to quote an excerpt from this "appeal" to the Ossetians living in Tskhinvali: "You must appreciate the kindness of the Georgians. You do not live in Ossetia, but in Shida Kartli. There is only one Ossetia in the world, and it is beyond the Caucasus ridge. Do not believe the illusions created by the Bolsheviks that there is a so-called South Ossetian Autonomous Region. Look ahead, evaluate your future. Live today so that you have the right to live in Shida Kartli tomorrow. You must condemn and expel the Ossetian separatists from Georgia, abolish 'Adamont Nykhas'. Why do you need this organization that supposedly protects you from Georgians? Have Georgians ever offended you? On the contrary, you have repeatedly had the audacity to try and offend the Georgians, but in the end, you were punished and quite rightly so. Remember history and be convinced that Ossetian arrogance in Georgia always ended badly for the Ossetians. And now it will be the same because we Georgians have always been right before you, and now we are right, and therefore God is with us."

The Threat of Nationalism

What can one say about this? It's the conversation of a master with a serf: "If you don't behave as I want, I'll whip you, I'll expel you." This happened when there was still Soviet power and Georgia was part of the Soviet Union. What happened to Ossetia after the collapse of the Soviet Union and what is happening now we have seen and continue to see. If not for Great Russia, there would simply be no South Ossetia. Remember August 2008, and everything will be clear.

Perhaps I have delved too deeply into the events in Georgia and South Ossetia. I wanted to show what happens to peoples when the state does not develop a correct national policy. Why did some former Soviet republics become so unfriendly towards Russia? In my opinion, it is primarily because they equate Soviet power with Russia and attribute all the sins of the Soviet government to Russia. But no one bothers to say that this is completely untrue. Has anyone analyzed the harm the Soviet government inflicted specifically on Russia? No. Has anyone considered how hard it was to feed a number of republics almost for free? Certainly not. How much effort did Russia put into the economic, industrial, and cultural development of the union republics? There is no answer. But our scholars, historians, economists, and political scientists should analyze the enormous contribution Russia made to the development and preservation of the peoples living in the former Russian Empire. Maybe then, in these republics, there would be no museums of Russian occupation, but museums of how Russia helped them live and develop. By the way, isn't it time to create museums in Russian cities to show how Russia helped the peoples of the Soviet Union? Perhaps we should introduce special programs on central television channels that objectively cover the history of the peoples of the former USSR and their relations with Russia.

Today's Challenges

We are indeed at a dangerous borderline. Efforts by short-sighted politicians, or rather those hostile to Russia, are destroying historical ties between Russia and the peoples for whom Russia was a friendly and brotherly country.

To be fair, it must be said that sometimes the leaders of our country also behave, to put it mildly, not very wisely and not very respectfully towards the leaders of other nations, and we get the corresponding results. I remember very well how many times Dzhokhar Dudayev asked Yeltsin to invite him for negotiations. The Chechen people were not in favor of leaving the Russian Federation. If there had been respectful relations towards the leadership of Chechnya and the Chechen people, there would not have been this bloody war, hundreds of thousands of victims, and terrible destruction. Yet we re-elected Yeltsin as president. In his first presidential term, he drank and squandered the country, and in the second term, he was treated for his alcoholism while the country was left to its own devices.

We are still conducting incorrect policies with our neighbors. Fine, we have cut off all ties with Georgia! To whom have we handed Georgia? America? Western Europe? This is exactly what they wanted. We should give every opportunity for the Georgian peasant to sell his goods in our market. We should create as many joint ventures as possible. Let the diplomats wage their war, but the people should communicate with each other. Then our influence will increase. The task of diplomacy is to turn enemies into friends, but we are doing the opposite. The danger is that the young generation of our neighbors is being brought up in a spirit of hostility and hatred towards us, towards Russia. What kind of fruits this upbringing will bear in 50 or 100 years can only be guessed. This is something today's leaders of the former Soviet Union countries need to think about. Yes, we are now experiencing a very critical and dangerous historical juncture. While those who worked hard to create a great and mighty country are still alive, while those who defended our great Motherland in a bloody battle with fascism are still alive, while the memory of those who defended the freedom and independence of the great country at the cost of their lives is still alive, there remains an opportunity to revive and strengthen the friendship between the republics of the former Soviet Union. If we let this opportunity slip away now, I fear that Russia will find itself surrounded not just by unfriendly countries but by outright hostile ones. The signs are already there: the Baltic states, Moldova, Georgia, some Central Asian republics, and even our allied Belarus are not entirely satisfied with us. Unfortunately, we do not pay enough attention to the fact that in some former union republics, young people are being raised in a spirit of fascism and chauvinism. These young people will eventually come to power in their countries. They will be the future ministers of defense in their republics, and where they will direct the barrels of their guns with such upbringing is a big question. All of this personally causes me great concern. I may not live to see such a situation, but I have grandchildren and great-grandchildren, and the kind of neighbors they will have to live with worries me.

The Role of Diplomacy

Diplomacy should aim to turn enemies into friends, but our current approach seems to be doing the opposite. We must change our policies and work towards rebuilding the bonds that once held the peoples of the Soviet Union together. By focusing on mutual respect, economic cooperation, and cultural exchange, we can hope to mend the fractured relationships and prevent the spread of hostility.

A Call for Unity

In conclusion, it is crucial for the current and future leaders of Russia and the former Soviet republics to recognize the importance of unity and cooperation. We need to learn from our history and avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. Only by working together can we ensure a peaceful and prosperous future for all our peoples.

As the year 2010 quietly slips away, leaving behind its echoes and memories, we find ourselves in a moment of reflection. Journalists and reporters have painted a vivid tapestry of the year’s notable events: the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the ravaging summer fires, and the heart-wrenching episodes of violence. Yet, amidst these chronicles, one momentous occasion seems to have faded into the shadows — the 65th anniversary of our triumph in the Great Patriotic War.

The Overlooked Significance of 2010

I had imagined, perhaps with naive optimism, that this significant anniversary would shine as the year’s most important event. This victory over the scourge of fascist Germany, a victory that carved our history, should have been enshrined in our collective consciousness. Instead, it appears that the memory of this great triumph is waning in the hearts of the younger generation.

The Risk of Forgetting

Is this glorious victory losing its significance for our youth? If so, what does this imply for our collective memory in the decades and centuries to come? Will future generations forget the sacrifices, the bloodshed, and the unyielding spirit that secured their very existence and freedom?

The victory in the Great Patriotic War was not merely a military success; it was a testament to the resilience and indomitable spirit of our people. The soldiers who valiantly fought and the civilians who supported them on the home front forged a legacy that demands our remembrance. If we allow these memories to slip away, how can we preserve them for the future?

Reflecting on World War II

The year 2010 also marked the 65th anniversary of the end of World War II. Our victory over Japan, culminating in the defeat of the Kwantung Army and the reclamation of the Kuril Islands, went largely unmentioned. These territories, lost during the humiliating defeat in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904, were reclaimed through sheer determination and sacrifice — a significant military achievement that deserves recognition.

Soviet Remembrance

In the days of the Soviet Union, the 7th of November was venerated as the day of the Great October Revolution. Even today, the older generation holds this date in high regard. This contrast underscores a broader societal issue — our propensity to forget the past all too quickly.

The Importance of June 22, 1941

As we step into 2011, another pivotal anniversary looms before us: 70 years since the most harrowing date in our nation’s history, June 22, 1941. This date marked the onset of the Great Patriotic War, altering the course of our lives irrevocably. The life that followed was starkly different from what had preceded it, a reality that no words can fully capture.

Children, robbed of their childhoods, and women, the elderly, and the young bore the brunt of supporting the frontlines. They labored tirelessly, driven by the rallying cry, “Everything for the front, everything for victory.” This was not mere rhetoric but a lived reality fulfilled with unwavering dedication. To forget this, to diminish its significance, is an affront to those who endured and survived the war.

Reflecting on Independence

In 2011, as various former Soviet republics celebrate their independence, it is essential to ponder the true implications of this newfound sovereignty. Many of these nations face economic challenges that compel their citizens to seek opportunities back in the country from which they declared independence. This irony calls for a deeper conversation about our interconnected histories and futures.

June 22, 1941, stands as a poignant reminder of our shared past and the unity forged in adversity. This date should not be relegated to obscurity. Instead, it should be a cornerstone of our collective memory, symbolizing our resilience and solidarity.

Conclusion

Let us not forget the sacrifices of those who came before us. Let us honor their memory by ensuring their stories are told and their legacy preserved for generations to come.

January 16, 2011

The piloted glider would be dropped from a bomber and shed its tail to expose 3 solid rocket engines. The entire front was warhead to pierce the hull of a battleship from just above the water line then explode.

In other words, which POTUS elections did the (a) general American public at the time see as all candidates being poor options, and (b) do current historians and political scientists generally agree as them having poor candidates?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dagen_H