Ethnic conflicts and separatism as prerequisites for the collapse of the USSR in the context of the crisis of official ideology

Biyushkina Nadezhda Iosifovna Doctor of Law Prodessor, the department of Theory and History of State and Law, N. I. Lobachevsky Nizhny Novgorod State University 603950, Russia, Nizhny Novgorod, Gagarina Street 23 Asya_biyushkina1@list.ru Other publications by this author

 Introduction

The positive processes of development of federalism that took place in the previous periods of Soviet statehood have been displaced since the mid-80s by the growing conflict between the republics and the union center on the one hand and inter–republican relations on the other.

              The difficulties of intra-federal managerial interaction were complicated by national contradictions.     In the vast expanse of the Soviet Union, populated by various ethnic groups, numerous ethnic clashes arose that threatened the very existence of the Union State. The Communist leadership, which found itself hostage to ideological cliches, was unable to adequately counteract the increasing turbulence of destructive processes in the field of national relations at a new level.      

The Russian Federation, which is the legal successor of the USSR not only on formal grounds, but also actually represents a multinational federal state entity. In this regard, the study of problems related to federal construction seems relevant, which has not lost its significance at the present time. Thus, the issue of interethnic contradictions is potentially significant at the present stage of the development of the Russian Federation.     

              The object of the study was the federal relations developing in the crisis conditions of ethnic conflicts and the stagnation of the official Soviet ideology. The subject of the study was ethnic conflicts and separatism as prerequisites for the collapse of the Soviet Union in the context of the crisis of communist ideology. The purpose of this study was to study certain negative trends in the development of federal relations in connection with the growing crisis phenomena in the USSR.    

              The novelty of the research lies in the fact that on the basis of archival documents, the author substantiates the dualistic nature of the genesis and development of interethnic conflicts, which, on the one hand, have deep historical roots, and on the other hand, were aggravated due to the miscalculations of Soviet federal construction. In addition, the crisis of the ideology of Soviet internationalism, which degenerated into scholastic dogmatism, mechanically exploited by the supreme power, without successful attempts at modernization, is clearly shown. A special contribution of the author to the research of the topic is the introduction into scientific circulation of archival documents from the funds of the State Archive of the Russian Federation and the State Archive of Socio-Political History.

              Ethnic conflicts and separatism as prerequisites for the collapse of the Soviet Union have been considered repeatedly in recent decades. In this regard, the author finds the works of G.I. Mirsky ^[1] and A.V. Shubin ^[2] interesting. The topic of ethnic conflicts in the post-Soviet space finds a much greater response among researchers, for example, articles by N.K. Arbatova ^[3], L.T. Kulumbegova ^[4], A.I. Fedorishchenko ^[5].   At the same time , this article is intended to fill a certain gap precisely in terms of the connection between ethnic conflicts and separatism on the one hand and the crisis of official ideology on the other .

Research methodology             

In the course of the study, a combination of the following methods was used. Among the universal methods, dialectics should be singled out, which made it possible to approach the subject of research from the point of view of its development, revealing patterns of occurrence and development. The general scientific methods used include the analysis of the positions of Soviet statesmen and public figures, as well as archival documents; the synthesis of empirical material; deductive and inductive methods, which allowed us to study the factors that contributed to the identification of the nature of interethnic conflicts, the establishment of a causal relationship between the crisis of interethnic relations and the collapse of the Union state; structural and systemic method, which made it possible to substantiate the relationship national policy, its ideological basis and federal construction.  Private scientific methods are presented by the historical method, which is applied in the process of studying the subject of research, taking into account the experience of the state structure of the Russian Empire, the creation of the RSFSR and the USSR. Among the special methods, the formal-legal one was particularly in demand, which made it possible to study the Union Agreement between the Soviet Socialist Republic of Georgia and the Soviet Socialist Republic of Abkhazia on the entry of these republics into the military and financial-economic union.  

DiscussionA significant part of the ethnic conflicts was "inherited" by the Soviet government from the Russian Empire.

In this regard, we associate ourselves with the position of the authors M.V. Podpryatov, R.A. Solovyov, M.G. Suslov, who rightly believe that "in such a multinational country as Russia, the national issue and interethnic relations have always been among the most significant and acute. The Jewish pogroms, the Armenian-Tatar massacre and other ethnic incidents in tsarist Russia pointed to the acuteness and tragedy of the contradictions. The Soviet Union inherited many problems of old Russia, but added new ones" ^{[6, p. 23]}. So, for example, the commission of the Central Executive Committee for the settlement of disputes between Turkmen and Kyrgyz, concluded that "the beginning of the Turkmen-Kyrgyz clashes ... refers to the end of the XVIII century" ^{[7, l. 3]}. The initial content of the conflict was as follows: "... the Kyrgyz, moving with their herds from the east, began to crowd the Turkmens ... who occupied the Mangishlak peninsula on the shore of the Caspian Sea. The Turkmens ..., pressed by the Kirghiz, had to migrate partly to Persia, partly to the Stavropol and Astrakhan provinces, partly to the borders of the present Khorezm Republic. Turkmens, without remaining permanently resident in Persia and other places, returned with their herds to their former pastures and faced the Kirghiz" ^{[7, l. 3]}. Clashes on purely economic grounds acquired a new, precisely ethnic impulse in 1916 – 1917, when "by descent from Turkmens, JUNEID KHAN makes attempts to to seize the throne of the Uzbek Khan of Khiva, but thanks to the support of the Kirghiz–Adayevites to UZBEK Khan, JUNEID KHAN's attempts were unsuccessful and his associates scattered across the steppes plundering exclusively Kirghiz and Uzbeks" ^{[7, l. 23]}.   In the early 20s, this ongoing conflict took new forms with the creation of paramilitary formations of each of the ethnic groups, in connection with which the VTSIK commission made proposals by force to "take measures to eliminate the possible self-protection of the population" and "take gradual measures to remove the leaders of both sides" ^{[7, L. 3 vol.]}.  In the light of the considered example, typical of the period of the formation of the Soviet federal state, it is difficult to agree with the position of researcher A.P. Myakshev, who notes that "it is with regret that we have to state that the main reason for the "preferred allocation" of documentary sources of the period of perestroika and post-Soviet Russia in the analysis of the mechanism and types of ethnic conflicts is nothing but narrowness event-factual base on the history of ethnic conflicts in previous periods" ^{[8, p. 36]}.      

In addition, some ethnic conflicts and territorial disputes were caused by past events related to the formation of the Union State. For example, Abkhazia initially had the status of an independent Soviet Socialist Republic. After the signing of the Union Treaty between the Socialist Soviet Republic of Georgia and the Socialist Soviet Republic of Abkhazia in 1921, the latter was united with Georgia on equal rights, as the text of the corresponding treaty of normative content convincingly testifies: "The Government of the Socialist Soviet Republic of Georgia on the one hand is the Government of  The Socialist Soviet Republic of Abkhazia on the other, proceeding from the deep community of national and historical ties that bind the working masses of Georgia and Abkhazia, and taking into account that only the full unification of all the forces of both fraternal republics can ensure both their interests and the interests of the great proletarian revolution..." ^{[9, l. 1]}. In this The document defined the conditions for the conclusion of this agreement, among which was "The Socialist Soviet Republic of Georgia and the Socialist Soviet Republic of Abkhazia are joining a military and financial and economic union. To achieve this goal , both missions declare the following commissariats united: a) military; b) finance; c) national economy; d) posts and telegraphs ... Foreign affairs remain entirely under the jurisdiction of the Socialist Soviet Republic of Georgia. ... Railways are transferred directly to the Management of the Transcaucasian Railways, foreign trade and the management of the united Foreign Trade of the Republics of Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia, the management of maritime transport – to the jurisdiction of the Mortran of the Socialist Soviet Republic of Georgia. The joint commissariats of both republics are part of the Revkom of the Socialist Soviet Republic of Georgia" ^{[9, l. 1 vol.]}. Thus, despite the equivalence of the status of the contracting parties, Georgia's dominance has already emerged in its conditions.   Subsequently, Abkhazia became part of the ZSFSR as part of the Georgian Socialist Soviet Republic, and then on February 19, 1931, the SSR Abkhazia was transformed into an autonomous socialist republic. Thus, the lowering of the legal status of Abkhazia laid the foundation for a conflict that escalated into an armed clash in the last years of Soviet power. 

 The stagnation of the official Soviet ideology and the increase in crisis phenomena in Soviet socio-political life in this regard led to the termination of the constructive orientation of the bifurcation processes of the development of federal relations. In this regard, one should disagree with the researcher M.I. Mamaev, who argued that "national policy already in the first years of the establishment of Soviet power confidently acquired the features of a repressive policy" ^{[10, p. 31]}.   The formalization of the issues of the development of national relations, the unwillingness and inability of the ruling elite to improve the Leninist postulates of national policy and Soviet federalism, which needed a new interpretation in relation to the existing relations, led to the fall of the authority of the authorities. The ideology that the supreme power reproduced as the only true one, presented to society as the ultimate truth, was critically perceived by the thinking part of the population. As researcher G.M. Barashkov rightly notes, "a human rights movement was emerging in the country. The explanation that the dissident movement arose precisely during the reign of L.I. Brezhnev, a number of researchers find in the fact that the removal of N.S. Khrushchev not only put an end to open discussions about the Stalin era, but also gave rise to a counteroffensive on the part of the Orthodox, who sought to rehabilitate Stalin. Dissidence was primarily a self-defense movement against the possibility of such a development … But dissidence was also a manifestation of disappointment in the ability of the system to reform" ^{[11, p. 102]}.  Despite the active work of the state security agencies to combat various forms of dissent, "ideological doubts are introduced into various strata of Soviet society" ^{[12, p. 169]}.      

Numerous speeches of the General Secretaries of the Central Committee of the CPSU at party congresses, party conferences, plenums, meetings with labor collectives convincingly indicate that the party leaders did not take into account the challenges of the time, did not respond to new realities, widely used the vocabulary of revolutionary and post-revolutionary times, slogan forms of appeal to the Soviet people, who were not accidentally recognized as the most reading in the world. One of the striking examples of such public speeches is the report of L. Brezhnev "Fifty years of great victories of Socialism and the final speech of L.I. Brezhnev at the joint solemn meeting of the Central Committee of the CPSU of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR dedicated to the 50th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution: "The whole world knows the results of Lenin's national policy, all nations and nationalities The Soviet Union has embarked on the path of prosperity and achieved great success in the development of industry, agriculture, science and culture, socialism has activated such a powerful driving force of our development as the friendship of peoples. The unity of the multinational Soviet people is as solid as a diamond. And as a diamond shimmers with the multicolored facets, so the unity of our people sparkles with the diversity of its nations, each of which lives a rich, full-blooded life.

The 50th anniversary of October is a real holiday of the fraternal family of peoples, a holiday of all the republics forming the great Soviet Union. The Russian Federation, Ukraine, Belarus, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Lithuania, Moldova, Latvia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Armenia, Turkmenistan, Estonia – they all live with the same thoughts, the same aspirations, they were together during the construction of socialism, they were together in the harsh year of the war. And together they are building communism, working independently, and jointly moving forward the economy, science and culture of the Soviet country.

Let the fraternal friendship of all nations and nationalities of our country flourish, let the unity of the multinational Soviet people grow stronger!" ^{[13, l. 29]}.

 A broad-minded, highly educated society with sarcasm and negative overtones perceived official government events dedicated to both the processes of party and state, and Soviet construction. Despite the fact that "the official ideology had at its disposal a sufficient arsenal, for example, mass media, propaganda and visual agitation. All public organizations worked for her. Its institutes and analytical centers employed the best social scientists and political scientists who created ideological programs and other documents aimed at maintaining the vital activity of the system" ^{[14, p. 374]}.        

A particularly high degree of negativism was inherent in the peoples of the Baltic republics, Western Ukraine, where nationalist sentiments aimed at secession from the USSR were alive and strong. A powerful impetus to separatist sentiments was given in the initial period of the Great Patriotic War, when part of the population of the western occupied territories voluntarily supported the Nazi regime: "National motives played an important role in the development of collaboration among the "non–Russian" peoples of the occupied territory - especially in the Baltic States, Western Ukraine and Crimea" ^{[15, p. 29]}.  The victory of the Soviet people made these separatist tendencies impossible. At the same time, the Soviet Union preserved the problem of national relations, and therefore the theory of Soviet federalism did not develop at all. It is characteristic that at the meeting with L. Brezhnev on the preparation of the report "Lenin's cause lives and wins", dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the birth of V.I. Lenin, the issues of the federal structure of the state were not touched at all. Attention was paid to the national liberation movement on a global scale: "In relation to the new historical conditions, Lenin comprehensively elaborated the national question, justified the idea of combining socialist revolutions with national liberation movements, the struggle of the proletariat for socialism with the anti-imperialist struggle of enslaved peoples. Relying on the law he discovered of increasing the unevenness of the economic and political development of various countries under the conditions of imperialism, Lenin prophetically foresaw that "The social revolution could not occur otherwise than in the form of an epoch combining the civil war of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie in advanced countries and a number of democratic and revolutionary, including national liberation movements in undeveloped backward and oppressed nations" (PSS, vol. 30, p. 112). Lenin did everything possible to rally the proletarians and the oppressed of the whole world to fight against imperialism" ^{[16, l. 29]}.  Even describing V.I. Lenin as the founder of the world's first socialist state, the federal nature of this state is not mentioned at all: "The triumph of the ideas of Leninism was the victory of the Great October Revolution in Russia and the formation of a Soviet Socialist state on one sixth of the globe. Lenin was the direct inspirer, organizer and leader of the world's first state of workers and peasants" ^{[16, l. 29]}.

One of the interethnic conflicts on the territory of the Soviet Union was the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict regarding the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region.  This topic, in particular, was touched upon in 1988 during a visit to the Armenian SSR by General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee Mikhail Gorbachev. First of all, he noted the all-Union assistance to the Armenian SSR affected by the earthquake, including the work of Azerbaijani specialists: "You know that Ukraine, Belarus, Moscow, Leningrad, Saratov, the whole Urals, and Azerbaijan worked for the fund for the restoration of Armenian cities and villages yesterday.  Although you are all angry with the Azerbaijani people, don't be angry. There is also such an audience there that wants to push nations together. But it also exists in Armenia" ^{[17, l. 16-17]}. In this, Mikhail Gorbachev recalled the long-standing conflict between the Armenian and Azerbaijani peoples over territorial claims regarding Nagorno-Karabakh. Attention is drawn to inappropriate rhetoric, everyday language, simplifying the severity of the interethnic problem, which requires deep theoretical and legal elaboration, special delicacy in addressing citizens, the purposeful desire of the authorities not only to smooth out existing contradictions, but also to successfully overcome them. Mikhail Gorbachev pointed to the efforts being made at the intra-party inter-republican level to overcome the Armenian- The Azerbaijani conflict: "The other day I met in the Central Committee of the CPSU with deputies of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR from Azerbaijan and Armenia, a member of the Central Committee of the Communist Parties of the two republics. Suggested: let's think together where to go next? And Armenians should live where both Azerbaijanis and Georgians live. After all, we have not only the Caucasus, the whole country is mixed up" ^{[17, l. 17]}.  The example of this speech illustrates, in our opinion, the erroneous idea of the authorities that the principle of internationalism for the USSR is an unshakable postulate, a self-evident phenomenon that has a constant character and, due to the prescription of its existence, cannot be transformed.  One of the reasons for the ongoing confrontation between the Azerbaijani and Armenian SSR over Nagorno-Karabakh was corruption, which affected both social and state relations: "... the new leadership of both Azerbaijan and Armenia is beginning to get close to corrupt officials, bribe takers who see that perestroika is coming to them. Therefore, they are in a hurry, inciting ethnic strife. They are doing this even now, when an unprecedented disaster has come" ^{[17, l. 17]}. In addition, the Soviet leadership saw a way out of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in improving the social and living conditions of the population of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region. Mikhail Gorbachev notes that "Nagorno-Karabakh is lagging behind in socio-economic development due to Azerbaijan's fault. And the current leadership of Azerbaijan fully assumes what was done by the previous leadership. By the decision of the Central Committee, the Council of Ministers of the USSR, we will allocate half a billion rubles for 130 thousand people living in the NKAO. To build the missing schools, libraries, cinemas, housing" ^{[17, l. 17]}. The example of this public speech by the leader of the Soviet state shows that the measures proclaimed were haphazard, chaotic in nature, there was no well-thought-out, purposeful policy of overcoming ethnic strife initiated by destructive forces that intensified in the last years of the USSR.  

Using the example of this article, it is shown that the ideology of international friendship could not resist the destructive impact of national clashes on the normal course of federal relations. The crisis of ideology aggravated ethnic conflicts, which in turn called into question the very existence of a federal state.

Based on the results of the article, the author made the following conclusions.

1. The dualistic nature of the genesis and development of interethnic conflicts, which, on the one hand, had deep historical roots, and on the other hand, were aggravated due to the miscalculations of the Soviet federal construction, is substantiated. Thus, we have a dialectical combination of objective and subjective factors that had a destructive effect on the development of Soviet statehood.
2. Lenin's national policy, which was the locomotive of Soviet construction in the early years of Soviet power, which retained a positive impulse for many decades, by the mid-80s had lost its positive charge and was not creatively updated by the Soviet leadership, turning into scholastic dogmatics.
3. By the end of the 80s, the connection between the ideas of internationalism and the mass consciousness of Soviet citizens was generally lost, which created a fertile ground for interethnic conflicts. The ideological vacuum created by the absence of creative communist political and legal thought was filled with various kinds of nationalist and even openly separatist ideas that seized the minds of both national elites and the general population. In the end, these factors largely served as the driving force behind the collapse of a single federal Soviet state.