VLADIMIR MEDINSKY: "HISTORY LESSONS ARE BETTER TO BE LEARNED IN ADVANCE AND IN GOOD FAITH"

The main questions are: why did the USSR collapse and was it possible to preserve it?

Why is there still so much controversy about the events of Soviet history? Can modern Russia ensure its own historical sovereignty and national security under unprecedented pressure from the West "on all fronts"? The participants of the international forum "History for the Future. Towards the 100th Anniversary of the USSR", held in late November in Moscow's Manege exhibition hall, tried to answer these and other important questions. It was the final event in the series of forums dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the founding of the USSR, organized by the Russian Military Historical Society. The Moscow forum became the largest and most respectable. It was attended by politicians, diplomats from the CIS countries, several Asian and Latin American countries, historians, sociologists, political scientists, futurologists, journalists, cultural figures. Students from seventeen Moscow universities were among its participants. Here is the speech delivered at the plenary session of the forum by Vladimir Medinsky, aide to the President of Russia and Chairman of the Russian Military Historical Society.

At the November forum in Moscow a variety of issues related to the 100th anniversary of the formation of the USSR were discussed. Those were interesting discussions that will undoubtedly continue. Historical science still has to figure out the circumstances of the emergence of the USSR and the entire Soviet period of our history. Of course one can’t avoid such a painful topic as the dissolution of the Soviet Union. This isn’t just a purely scientific interest: the way we generalize and incorporate the experience of the past largely determines what our future will be like. It’s better to learn the lessons of history in advance and in good faith.

There really are a lot of questions. For example, was the Soviet Union the successor of the Russian Empire, or was it something new, separate from the overall history of the Russian state? Should we separate one period of history from another, even if we’re talking about a change of social formation, as it happened in Russia in February-October 1917?

Another topic that, in my opinion, deserves close attention is the fall of the Russian Empire. There are now different opinions in historical studies on this matter nowadays. Some say that everything happened in February 1917, when Russia became a republic. While others argue with equal certainty that the collapse of the empire began in October 1917, when the Bolsheviks came to power. Both these points of view seem to me to be historically controversial. Why not assume that the collapse of the empire began much earlier than the February Revolution, and that the Soviet Union, on the contrary, became a brace that allowed this vast, multi-ethnic and multi-confessional land to persist

We call the collapse of the Soviet Union the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the XXth century. Vladimir Putin has said it so many times. Yes, it was a catastrophe that affected the entire course of modern history. The question is whether the collapse of the Soviet Union was in part the collapse of the historical Russia. If we reason in this way, our views of this process must undergo significant changes, as well as our views of the past and views of the future.

Another question is whether there was a redistribution of territories within the Soviet Union as the Soviet state functioned? After all, if we look at the map of the USSR of 1922 and compare it with the map of 1991, we will see striking changes. Was this redistribution of territories of a "technical" nature or, on the contrary, was some centuries-old historical injustice corrected in this way? Did Russia benefit from such redistribution of land?

Speaking of the Soviet Union, we cannot avoid "economic" issues. I doubt anyone would argue that the Soviet economy was inefficient, primarily in the area of consumption. It suppressed entrepreneurial spirit and initiative from below and objectively ensured a permanently growing lag in living standards, when our commodity bundle wasn’t in any comparison with, say, Western European ones. But when we talk about the Soviet economy as a whole, we cannot talk about its global lag. At least because in the systemic areas - heavy industry, defense industry, basic science, space exploration, culture, education and health care - the USSR remained competitive until the last moment and even outpaced in some ways its geopolitical opponent, the USA. But if this is true, then how right are those who argue that the Soviet Union was gravely ill? Was the disease fatal and incurable? And was it ill at all? These topics are still waiting for a thoughtful researcher. Hopefully we will get truthful, scientifically based answers to such pressing questions.

Anyway, even today, thirty-one years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the main question remains: was it possible to preserve the Union? Was there such a historic opportunity? And if there was, why did we miss this chance? I’m not urging my colleagues to speak of history in the subjunctive mood. Whatever happened, happened. But it’s important for us to know why it happened.

If there was a historical option of preserving the Soviet Union, then it’s natural to ask another difficult and painful question: can the Soviet Union be revived? This question can be phrased differently: is there any possibility to integrate the territories that once were part of the Soviet Union?

How should we assess the USSR today? Was this period of our history positive or negative? The farther back the Soviet Union goes away, the more often we ask this question, and the more nostalgically we talk about Soviet times. It’s understandable, simply because it’s human nature to remember the good. This is how we, humans, are built: we forget the evil, the injustice, the ideological idiocy, all the lies that surrounded us in the Soviet years. No matter what people think of the Soviet system and the Soviet Union, we remember the good, we remember the desire for truth and justice. Whatever desperate communist or White Guard positions one may hold, I think everyone will agree that it was the first large-scale attempt to build a society based on the principles of good and justice, not only at the "internal" level, but also at the state-civilizational and global level. Remembering the Soviet Union, one cannot but agree that these principles were gradually replaced in the mass consciousness with the idea of consumption: for some it was the idea of "overconsumption," for others - of "underconsumption”. It’s the truth, albeit brutal.

The centennial of the formation of the Soviet Union is a good reason to reflect on these issues. Without any exaggeration, it’s vital for us to answer these eternal questions: why we live, what we strive for, and what awaits us in the future.

The Forum, organized by RMHS, was one of the key events
that addressed the history of the formation of the USSR