After the collapse of the USSR, the liquidation of the previous structures of power and management began. Some former Soviet institutions and departments were transferred to the disposal of Russian management structures. The Moscow Kremlin became the residence of the country's president.
On April 21, 1992, the official name of the Russian state was changed. The RSFSR was renamed the Russian Federation - Russia (with both names being equivalent).
With the collapse of the USSR, the nature of the relationship between the President, on the one hand, and the Supreme Council and the Congress of People's Deputies, on the other, did not change. The lack of a clear delineation of powers between them caused acute confrontation between the two branches state power- legislative and executive. The relationship between them became especially aggravated during the development period. constitutional project Russian state. Anti-presidential sentiments have intensified among parliamentarians. Many members of the deputy corps advocated returning the country to the path of previous political development and for the restoration of the USSR.
The opposition sentiments of parliamentarians found support among a significant part of the population. Many Russians were dissatisfied with the continuation of the course towards the development of a market economy, the ongoing economic crisis and the lack of social guarantees. In December 1992, under pressure from the legislative branch, the government of E. T. Gaidar resigned. V.S. Chernomyrdin, who had previously been in administrative management, became the new Prime Minister of the Cabinet of Ministers. But this did not relieve tension in society and in the relationship between President B.N. Yeltsin and parliament.
In April 1993, on the initiative of the Congress of People's Deputies, a referendum was held on confidence in the president, on early elections of the president and people's deputies. The results of the referendum, which meant a victory for the presidential forces, deepened the political crisis.
The confrontation between the branches of power intensified in the fall of 1993. By this time, the president and his advisers had prepared a draft of a new Constitution of the Russian Federation. However, parliamentarians, trying to limit the omnipotence of the president, delayed its adoption. On September 21, 1993, B. N. Yeltsin announced the dissolution of representative bodies of power - the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation and the Congress of People's Deputies. Elections for a new parliament were scheduled for December 12. Some deputies refused to recognize the legality of the president’s actions and announced his removal from power. A new president was sworn in - A.V. Rutskoy, who until that moment held the post of Vice President of the Russian Federation.
In response to the unconstitutional presidential act, opposition forces organized demonstrations in Moscow and made a failed attempt to storm the city hall and the Ostankino television center. The desire to change the course of socio-economic reforms united several tens of thousands of people. A state of emergency was declared in the capital, and troops were sent into the city. During the events, several of its participants died or were injured.
In October 1993, decrees were adopted on the reform of representative bodies of government and local self-government. In accordance with them, the activities of Soviets at all levels were terminated. Their responsibilities were transferred to the hands of local administration and elected councils.
Russian Constitution of 1993
On December 12, 1993, the Constitution of the Russian Federation was adopted by popular vote. Russia declared itself a democratic federal legal state with a republican form of government. The head of state was the president, elected by popular vote. The Russian Federation included 21 republics and 6 territories, 1 autonomous region and 10 autonomous okrugs, 2 cities federal significance(Moscow and St. Petersburg) and 49 regions. The principles for constructing the highest bodies of state power and administration were determined. The bicameral structure of the Federal Assembly, the permanent legislative body of the Russian Federation, was legislated. The independence of the bodies of the three branches of government - legislative, executive and judicial - was emphasized.
The Constitution delimited the powers between the authorities of the Russian Federation and its subjects.
The most important national issues were assigned to the competence of the highest authorities of Russia: the adoption of laws and control over their implementation, management of federal state property, financial system, basics of pricing policy, federal budget. They were responsible for resolving issues of foreign policy and international relations, declaring wars and concluding peace, and managing foreign economic relations. The federal civil service was also subordinate to the federal government. Issues of environmental management, protection of historical and cultural monuments, education, and science were under the joint jurisdiction of the authorities of the Federation and its constituent entities.
Legislatively fixed political multi-party system, the right to freedom of labor and the right to private property. The Constitution created the conditions for achieving political stability in society.
Formation of a new Russian statehood
Russia greeted the beginning of 1992 not only with a new state status and the legal successor of all obligations and treaties of the USSR, but also with a radical change in the economic course of the country's development.
It was based on the ideas economic theory“monetarism”, which provides for a complete rejection of state intervention in the activities of independent economic entities, integration into the world economic system, and the elimination of the state monopoly on foreign and domestic trade. The new taxation system became the main source of state revenue. This policy was called "shock therapy".
To ensure complete independence of the economic activities of economic entities, two interrelated measures were taken: the mandatory corporatization of all enterprises and the privatization of state property through the issuance of privatization checks - vouchers . Hidden for now target This mechanism is the creation of a layer of private owners, the social base of the new state.
Freedom of trade, pricing, and corporatization required the creation of our own - non-state - infrastructure: private and commercial banks, stock exchanges, and securities exchanges began to be formed, which were included in the global financial system.
Thus, the restructuring of economic relations on the basis of “capitalism” took place at a rapid pace with all its positive and negative consequences.
Unfortunately, the ill-conceived and hasty economic transformations, the lack of development of the legislative framework for the measures taken, the refusal of scientific support and analysis of the emerging new reality led to important social imbalances, which had catastrophic consequences for the majority of the Russian population, who found themselves socially unprotected from these processes (children, pensioners, disabled people, family, students, etc.).
The country's economic situation was aggravated by the consequences of theoretical euphoria about the automatic solution of problems as a result of complete freedom to enter the world market and the removal of all obstacles to the import of goods into Russia. The absolute majority of goods produced in the country could not withstand competition. Russia was allowed into the world economic system only with its natural resources (oil, gas, mineral fertilizers, industrial semi-finished non-ferrous metals, etc.), which created a real danger of turning it into a raw material appendage of developed countries, in which it was already located at the beginning of the twentieth century.
The elimination of state control over prices, the denationalization of domestic and foreign trade, and the free conversion of the national currency caused a rapid increase in the cost of living, the ruble depreciated, which led to a sharp drop in the standard of living of the bulk of the population. Socially vulnerable segments of the population found themselves in a particularly difficult situation.
Some stabilization of the economic situation in the mid-90s. ends in 1998 with a default, which undermined the position of small and medium-sized businesses and created new difficulties in the socio-economic development of the country.
In the second half of the 1990s. the government is taking a course towards denationalization of social sectors: healthcare, education, culture, social insurance, labor protection, family development, etc. This leads to an actual rejection of the main provisions of the country’s Constitution, to its declarative nature.
At the beginning of the 21st century. The country entered with a fairly heavy load of acute problems in all spheres of social life. With the coming to power of the new President of Russia V.V. Putin in 1999 and his election to this post for two terms, the situation begins to gradually change, there is hope for the gradual revival of Russia and its entry into the ranks of the leading states of the world.
IN political field This period is characterized by a transition to a new type of state. In 1993, the growing crisis of relations between the Soviet system government system with presidential power ends with a coup d'etat and the liquidation of Soviet power in October 1993.
In December 1993 it was adopted Constitution of the Russian Federation , which cemented the existence of a presidential republic. However, we can talk about recreating the system of state power of the early twentieth century, known to us as the “June Third Monarchy.” Although all democratic institutions and attributes were created or preserved: the State Duma, the Federation Council, the Constitutional Court, universal suffrage, multi-party system, freedom of speech, etc.
Since the beginning of the 21st century. the prerequisites and legislative base for the formation of real local self-government and civil society are being created.
The formation of a new statehood was accompanied by a complication of federal and national relations. The “parade of sovereignties” of the national republics, the war in Chechnya, and the territorial and historical claims of the former Soviet republics created a complex knot of contradictions. However, despite all the remaining problems, it can be stated that today’s leadership of the country managed to reverse these negative trends and strengthen internal unity of the Russian Federation .
The country's development took place against the backdrop of fundamentally new international relations . The elimination of the confrontation between the two superpowers, the bipolar world as a whole, the weakening of Russia's international positions, the rapid development of globalization of modern civilization based on scientific and technological revolution - all this revealed the desire of a number of leading world states, primarily the United States, to establish their own hegemony on the basis of these objective realities.
The elimination of the military presence of the USSR, and then its successor, Russia, in Eastern Europe and other regions of the world led to a change in military parity in favor of the NATO bloc. Gradually, a desire to expand the number of military bases directly on its borders, threatening Russia’s national security, emerged. Moreover, the former Soviet republics began to be drawn into this process: the Baltic states, Georgia, Ukraine. The assurances of the leadership of this bloc that this movement to the East is purely peaceful and that this process is directed against international terrorism revealed their inconsistency already in the first years of the new century. The active military participation of this bloc in the collapse of Yugoslavia, the war in Iraq, and the equipping of troops with weapons of mass destruction of a new generation confirmed the danger of the adopted course.
To the credit of the new Russian leadership, quite effective measures are being taken to counter the unilateral strengthening of NATO. In addition, Russia's foreign policy activities within the UN and other international organizations have become more aggressive and principled.
As for the historical prospects for the new Russian state, it has everything it needs to once again occupy one of the leading places in the global process development of modern civilization.
[*] Explanatory or optional additional material is provided in small print.
The RSFSR was the largest union republic of the USSR and occupied over 3/4 of the country's territory, more than half of its population lived in it. Like other union republics, the RSFSR had its own Constitution (the last Constitution of the RSFSR was adopted on April 12, 1978), its own bodies of state power and administration - the Supreme Council of the RSFSR, the Presidium of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR, the Council of Ministers of the RSFSR, ministries and departments. At the same time, the statehood of the RSFSR was largely nominal. Unlike other republics, its state structures did not complement the pyramid of power and were often an extra link that could easily be dispensed with, therefore, many bodies that existed in other union republics were not created in the RSFSR.
The political processes of late perestroika and the decentralization of public administration directly affected the RSFSR. In the spring of 1990, new government bodies were formed in the RSFSR - the Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR and the permanent Supreme Council of the RSFSR. On June 12, 1990, at the First Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR, the Declaration of State Sovereignty of the RSFSR was adopted by a majority vote. Although the choice of Russian deputies was largely determined by the behavior of other republics, the adoption of this act pushed already strong separatist tendencies in various regions of the USSR.
On March 17, 1991, at a republican referendum, the majority of Russians were in favor of introducing the post of president into the RSFSR. On June 12, 1991, on the anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of State Sovereignty of the RSFSR, the first presidential elections were held, which brought victory to B. N. Yeltsin.
After the failure of the coup attempt in August 1991, the real levers of state power ended up in the hands of the republics, including the RSFSR. Institutions, enterprises and organizations moved from all-Union to republican subordination.
In December 1991, after the final collapse of the USSR, the RSFSR became an independent state and was recognized by the world community as the legal successor of the USSR. In April 1992, the official name of the republic was changed. The Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic was renamed the Russian Federation - Russia. The names “Russian Federation” (RF) and “Russia” were recognized as equivalent.
Federal Treaty of 1992 The leadership of the Russian Federation, busy fighting the union center, encouraged the separatist actions of some leaders of Russian autonomies, rightly believing that this weakens the union center. But after December 1991, it itself faced a serious problem of preserving the state unity of the Russian Federation. There is a real threat of the collapse of the Russian Federation.
The search for an optimal model of the national-state structure of the Russian Federation was difficult. It was conducted in heated discussions and disputes with separatist-minded political elites autonomous entities. Their main result was a new understanding of the principle of federalism, which went beyond the sphere of national politics, acquired a universal character and was extended to relations between the Russian center and regions that were not national entities.
On March 31, 1992, the Federal Treaty was signed. He gave the status of subjects of the Russian Federation not only to the republics within the Russian Federation (as the former autonomous republics and autonomous regions, except for the Jewish Autonomous Region), autonomous region and autonomous okrugs, which was taken for granted, but also large administrative-territorial units - territories and regions, as well as Moscow and St. Petersburg, which later received the name of cities of federal significance.
The 1992 Federal Treaty consisted of three separate treaties:
Agreement on the delimitation of jurisdiction and powers between the federal government bodies of the Russian Federation and the government bodies of the sovereign republics within the Russian Federation;
Agreement on the delimitation of jurisdiction and powers between federal government bodies of the Russian Federation and government bodies of territories, regions, cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg of the Russian Federation;
Agreement on the delimitation of jurisdiction and powers between the federal government bodies of the Russian Federation and the government bodies of the autonomous region, autonomous districts within the Russian Federation.
All national and territorial entities, except Tatarstan and Chechnya, signed the Federal Treaty. After settling a number of issues in a bilateral agreement between the Russian Federation and Tatarstan, the latter joined the Federal Agreement (1994).
With the conclusion of the Federal Treaty, it was possible to avoid repeating the scenario with the collapse of the state, this time in Russia. Its state-legal nature as a federation has finally changed. Firstly, it became a “full” federation, i.e. all its national entities are its subjects. Secondly, it turned into a mixed federation, combining both national and territorial principles in its structure. Of its 89 subjects, 32 are built on a national-territorial principle, 57 - on a national one.
State apparatus of the Russian Federation in 1991 -1993. The period from December 1991 to December 1993 turned out to be one of the most dramatic in the history of the formation of the new Russian statehood. State structures that appeared during the era of the USSR slowly and complexly transformed into the authorities of a sovereign state.
Supreme body The Congress of People's Deputies was considered the power in the Russian Federation. It consisted of 1,068 deputies elected from territorial districts (900), national-state entities (84) and administrative-territorial units (84). The competence of the Congress included determining domestic and foreign policy, adopting and amending the Constitution, and resolving a number of other important state issues. The Supreme Council of the Russian Federation was also elected at the Congress. In order to more quickly carry out economic reforms, the Congress of People's Deputies in the fall of 1991 delegated part of its powers to the President of the Russian Federation.
The Supreme Council of the Russian Federation was a permanent legislative, administrative and control body. Each of its two chambers (the Council of the Republic and the Council of Nationalities) had 126 deputies. An annual rotation of some of its members was expected.
The highest official, the head of executive power, was the President of the Russian Federation. He was elected in tandem with the vice president for a five-year term. The Constitution established certain requirements for candidates for both of these positions: they had to be no younger than 35 and no older than 65 years. The same person could not hold the office of president for more than two consecutive terms. The President was vested with significant powers in the sphere of executive power and directed the activities of the government.
The Constitutional Court became a new body in the state system of the Russian Federation, exercising judicial power in the form of constitutional proceedings.
With the collapse of the USSR, executive and administrative power underwent changes. All-Union and Union-Republican ministries and state committees were abolished. All central government bodies of the Russian Federation began to report only to the President or the Government of the Russian Federation. During this reorganization, a number of ministries and departments of the Russian Federation received at their disposal the apparatus of the abolished union structures.
In local government, a departure began from the principle of unity and sovereignty of the Soviets. He stated that the local administration, although it remained accountable to the Council, ceased to be its executive body. However, until the end of 1993, the process of reorganization of local government was not completed.
The coexistence of old and new governance structures, the varying degrees of their adaptation to new conditions, the complexity of the political and economic situation in the country, the beginning of the redistribution of state property, disagreements over the adoption of a new Constitution became the cause of the crisis of 1993, which resulted in an armed confrontation between supporters of the Congress of People's Deputies and the Supreme Council, on the one hand, and supporters of the president and the government, on the other.
Development and adoption of the Constitution of the Russian Federation of 1993 Work on the new Basic Law began in the summer of 1990, when the First Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR adopted the Declaration of State Sovereignty and formed the Constitutional Commission. It included 102 deputies, the commission was headed by B. N. Yeltsin, who at that time was the Chairman of the Supreme Council of the RSFSR.
By the fall of 1990, the draft Constitution was published. The establishment of the post of President of the Russian Federation, the collapse of the USSR and the transformation of the Russian Federation into an independent state, the signing of the Federal Treaty and other changes forced us to constantly refine the draft prepared by the Constitutional Commission. Nevertheless, until the spring of 1993 it remained the official draft of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. In parallel with the preparation of the new Constitution, various changes and amendments were made to the existing Constitution. Between 1990 and 1993, over 600 amendments were adopted.
In May 1993, on behalf of the President of the Russian Federation, an alternative draft of the Basic Law was proposed, which from now on became the official draft of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. He redistributed power in favor of the president. The anti-Yeltsin opposition regarded him as “monarchical” and “authoritarian.” In order to find agreement, a constitutional meeting was convened in June 1993. His work took place in five groups, formed from representatives of federal authorities, regional authorities, local governments, as well as representatives of political parties, trade unions, other public organizations, religious denominations and entrepreneurs. The presidential draft was supplemented with a number of additions taken from the draft of the Constitutional Commission. Although both projects had many common provisions, such as the priority of human rights, separation of powers, pluralism of forms of ownership, and the principle of federalism, it was not possible to reach a compromise. The stumbling block was the dilemma: presidential or parliamentary republic. Another controversial issue remained the problem of the national-state structure of the Russian Federation, only partially regulated by the Federal Treaty.
The question of how to adopt the Constitution also caused no less heated controversy. Several were discussed possible options: adoption of the Constitution by the Congress of People's Deputies (this option did not suit the President, since the opposition was concentrated at the Congress); by a new composition of parliament, specially convened for this purpose by the Constitutional Assembly, and it was not excluded that the constitutional conference could be vested with the powers of such an assembly; finally, through a referendum.
The confrontation between the legislative and executive powers gave rise to an acute constitutional crisis. The President of the Russian Federation took the initiative in resolving it, thereby amending the current Constitution. On September 21, 1993, B.N. Yeltsin issued decree No. 1400 “On phased constitutional reform in Russia.” According to this decree, the Congress of People's Deputies and the Supreme Council were dissolved. At the same time, elections to a new parliament and a constitutional referendum were announced.
After October 1993, work on the text of the Constitution entered its final phase. The draft was finalized by the constitutional meeting, taking into account amendments proposed by the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, public organizations, and specialists. Controversial issues, including those affecting the theory of constitutional law, were referred to the Constitutional Arbitration Commission, formed of highly qualified lawyers.
In November 1993, the draft Basic Law was published. The referendum, held on December 12, 1993, was attended by 54.8% of citizens of the Russian Federation with the right to vote; 58.4% of them voted for the new Constitution of the country. For the first time in the history of Russia, the Basic Law was adopted by the people, although it must be noted that the Constitution was actually approved by only a third of the country's population. The adoption of the Constitution of the Russian Federation completed the process of formalizing the new Russian statehood.
The political system of Russia in the 1990s. has undergone qualitative changes. In the evolution of the state system of the Russian Federation, two stages can be distinguished: 1992-1993. - the period of maintaining the Soviet type of legislative (representative) power and its struggle with presidential-governmental structures and the period opened by the 1993 Constitution, which consolidated the political dominance of presidential power, the approval of a new mechanism for the separation of powers.
The political system of Russia in 1992-1993. was formed on the basis of coexistence and then confrontation between the two branches of government. Councils at all levels were retained. This period ended with a failed attempt to forcefully remove B. N. Yeltsin from power in October 1993 and the adoption of the new Constitution of the Russian Federation in a national referendum on October 12, 1993. At the same time, elections to the new parliament took place.
According to the new Constitution, Russia was declared a democratic federal legal state with a republican form of government. The federal structure of the country was consolidated, based on state integrity, delimitation of the jurisdiction and powers of government bodies of the center and the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, equality and self-determination of peoples. Russia includes 89 equal subjects: 21 republics, 6 territories, 49 regions, 1 autonomous region, 10 autonomous districts and 2 federal cities (Moscow and St. Petersburg).
State power in the Russian Federation began to be built on the basis of its division into legislative, executive and judicial. State power is exercised by the President, the bicameral Federal Assembly (the upper one is the Federation Council and the lower one is the State Duma), the Government and the courts of the Russian Federation.
A new phenomenon was the legal consolidation of the status of the Constitutional Court. In the constituent entities of Russia, state power is exercised by presidents, governors and local representative bodies. The Constitution recognized the ideological and political diversity of public life, enshrined a multi-party system, human and civil rights and freedoms, including the right to private property.
Since the end of 1993, the formation of new government bodies, provided for by the Constitution and other regulations, began. Elections to the State Duma were held according to a mixed majority-proportional system. The elections contributed to the emergence of a multi-party system in Russia. A major step in the political process was the 1996 national presidential election, in which B. N. Yeltsin again won. The next elections to the State Duma in 1999 took place in the context of the established multi-party system and the professionalization of parliamentary activities. The victory in these elections was won by the pro-government bloc “Unity”, formed mainly from supporters of the policies of the new Chairman of the Government V.V. Putin.
After the adoption of the 1993 Constitution, state legislation was updated. In almost all branches of law, new codes were adopted, which were fundamentally different from the codes Soviet era. Among them: Civil Code 1994-2001, Criminal Code 1996, Family Code 1995, Labor Code 2001, etc.
On December 31, 1999, Russian President B.N. Yeltsin announced his voluntary early resignation from his post. According to the Constitution, V.V. Putin became the acting president of the Russian Federation. At the elections held on March 26, 2000, in the first round, he was elected President of Russia.
Choosing a political course. As at the beginning of the 20th century, the new Russian statehood was born in an atmosphere of chaos and anarchy. The content and sequence of political and economic reforms were dictated by the crisis state of the socialist system, and not by the subjective choice of certain political leaders.
By the end of 1991, a very difficult socio-economic situation was developing in the country. Over the year, national income decreases by more than 11%, industrial production falls, and the production of oil and coal and food products decreases. Almost all types of consumer goods become scarce. By the beginning of November 1991, the country's foreign exchange reserves were completely exhausted, and Vnesheconombank stopped all payments abroad, with the exception of payments to service the external debt, which by this time reached $76 billion. The threat of real famine looms over the country.
Due to constantly deteriorating living conditions, euphoria in society is quickly giving way to general disappointment. The newfound freedom from Marxist dogma brought a sense of relief to the country's population, but at the same time there was confusion about an uncertain future and a feeling of loss of social and moral guidelines. “Perestroika” shook the foundations of the Soviet system, but practically did not create the political and economic foundations of the capitalist system.
In the fall of 1991, state bodies of the USSR actually ceased to function as authorities. An attempt to create a new union state apparatus in the form of the Inter-Republican Economic Committee (IEC) ends in failure. The former Soviet republics refuse to fulfill economic obligations to the Union. Some of them decisively choose the path of radical socio-economic reforms. Others try by all means and means to avoid them or delay them as much as possible.
At the same time, the union bureaucracy was stealing federal property into urgently created “concerns” and “associations.” The process of spontaneous privatization is sweeping the regions of the country.
The situation in the country was complicated by the inaction of democratic forces that did not have a clear, well-developed program for systemic transformation. The disappearance of the enemy in the person of the CPSU caused split and apathy in their ranks.
The growing chaos and social tension required the Russian leadership to urgently realize new reality, form national state institutions, determine the goals and objectives of the foreign and domestic policies of the Russian Federation, resolve the most pressing socio-economic issues, and finally, launch competitive market mechanisms. Coincidence in time of tasks that were solved in other countries in different time, incredibly complicated the activities of the government of B. N. Yeltsin. The creation of the foundations of a new socio-economic system took place in an environment of acute shortage of prerequisites for it. For historical reasons, Soviet people had only extremely negative ideas about capitalism and the market, and therefore did not feel the desire to participate in their creation.
For these reasons, the question of the goal of transforming Russian society could not be immediately raised publicly in the fall and winter of 1991, either by the authorities or the media. President B. N. Yeltsin did not in any of his program speeches in 1991-1992. did not talk about capitalism as the ultimate goal of the beginning structural reforms. Thus, the question of where Russia should go in order not to lose its state and international positions was actually left unanswered. Because of this, the internal political situation in the country in the fall of 1991 remained uncertain, Russian society lived with vague expectations of change.
For the same reasons it was not implemented real chance reorganization of the old state machine into democratic basis, i.e. through re-elections of Councils at all levels. After the collapse of the USSR, B. N. Yeltsin clearly did not want to “rock the boat.” Moreover, this prospect did not suit either the Russian partycrats or the Russian democrats at that time. Elections to the Soviets were postponed, and the old nomenklatura continued to operate in the Soviets and in economic structures. Between the new Russian leadership and the former party and economic elite, a completely definite agreement, not sealed by any formal agreements, arose, the essence of which was the refusal to dismantle the Soviet system and reform it only to a limited extent. The union of the political elite, new and old, became the basis of the post-August transitional Russian statehood. As a result, everything - from the army to the KGB, from the prosecutor's office to social security departments - was preserved. The changes affected only the CPSU apparatus (it was dissolved, and the buildings of the CPSU Central Committee were sealed). The president decisively rejected lustration (putting on trial for the past), which the most radical democrats insisted on. Having intuitively solved the problem of consensus (between the ruling and opposing political forces, avoiding a “witch hunt”), the new Russian leadership was able to begin reforms. However, the traditional split in values in Russian society has significantly complicated the solution of this problem, constantly provoking the undermining of the achieved civil consent.
The crisis and collapse of the Soviet system coincided with the financial and budgetary crisis, so in the fall of 1991, the political leadership of Russia, along with the main task - the transition to a market and the formation of a developed system of private property relations - was faced with the equally pressing issue of stopping inflation and ensuring stable economic growth. The inaction of the Russian government in the first period after the August events had a negative impact on the development of the socio-economic situation. Uncertainty of economic prospects, discussions about the upcoming monetary reform and increase retail prices pushed the Russian population to buy goods and create a stock of essential items. As a result, the few goods still remaining from Gorbachev's times disappeared from the stores. The introduction of the principle of distributing goods among the population using cards and coupons and organizing sales at enterprises could not improve the situation. “Hungry queues” are becoming a major factor in politics, contributing to increased confrontation between political forces. The hardships caused by the collapse of the USSR seriously hampered the legitimacy of reformist authorities and policies. In turn, the emerging democratic institutions, transmitting and intensifying the social tension caused by the reforms, largely complicate their development. In this situation, they begin to gradually return to active political life communists who created several parties. As a result, already at the initial stage of post-communist transformation, support political regime narrowed sharply. The situation was also complicated by the growing threat of the collapse of Russia itself, which was created at one time on the same principles as the Union.
Preserving the integrity of the Russian state. The fate of Russian statehood in 1991-1993. was largely determined by the confrontation between the republican regional authorities and the federal government. The reasons that led to the collapse of the USSR affected the growth of centrifugal, separatist tendencies within Russia. They were based on the desire of the regions to independently manage the fruits of their labor. Failures in reforming society pushed the autonomies to seek a way out of the crisis by solving their own national problems through isolation from other ethnic groups. In the context of an aggravation of the economic crisis, a severance of economic ties, and the impoverishment of the majority of the population, the republican economic elite, skillfully appealing to real facts national discrimination, demanded preferential rights to territory and resources for titular nationalities. The threat of the collapse of Russia grew throughout 1992. By the summer of this year, dozens of subjects of the Federation - Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Yakutia (Sakha), Udmurtia, Novosibirsk and Tyumen regions delayed or even stopped paying taxes to the federal budget.
Some subjects of the Federation proposed transforming it into a confederation, others advocated real federalism, that is, a clear division of the spheres of responsibility and powers of the center and localities, taking into account the natural, climatic and socio-political differences of the regions. Still others, fearing the economic ineffectiveness of a federation built on ethnic rather than territorial-economic principles, as well as the development of “asymmetry” into a confederation, demanded the liquidation of existing republics, territories and regions and the creation in their place of provinces strictly subordinate to the center.
The claims of the republics and other national entities in Russia to a special status, and even more so to secede from it, threatened the complete collapse of the country and civil strife. Under these conditions, the government of the Russian Federation pursued an inconsistent national-state policy. The illegal armed groups of D. Dudayev, who dispersed the Supreme Council of the Chechen-Ingush Autonomy in September 1991 and demonstratively announced the separation of Chechnya from Russia, were not disarmed, which subsequently turned into a serious crisis in this region. Subsidizing from the federal budget continued for the republics that were heading towards secession from Russia. It was only at the end of October 1992, after the start of the clash between the Ossetians and the Ingush, that the Russian President for the first time did not rule out the possibility of using force to protect the territorial integrity of the country and state interests.
The first serious step towards preserving the unity of Russia was the Federative Treaty, work on which began back in 1990. Even during the discussion of the draft treaty, it became obvious that the idea of national statehood had taken deep roots during the years of Soviet power and it was impossible to return to territorial entities. Therefore, both a return to the pre-revolutionary provincial structure on a territorial basis and a federation of national states with preferential rights to the territory of titular nations and minimal powers of the federal center were rejected. Signed on March 31, 1992 by the majority of the subjects of the Federation, with the exception of Tatarstan and Chechnya, the Federative Agreement outlined in general terms the powers of general federal bodies and bodies of the subjects of the Federation. Thus, internal political tension in the country sharply decreased, and the war of laws partially ceased.
Confrontation between two authorities. The legislative design of the new Russian statehood in the first years of reforms was seriously complicated by the confrontation within the government itself, between its two branches - legislative and executive, but essentially - two systems of power - one from the past, the other in the future - democratic. Their conflict in the absence of normal constitutional legitimacy of power (the slightly updated old Basic Law of the RSFSR continued to operate in the country) and the coexistence in the state body of two incompatible principles (presidential power and the Soviet system) was inevitable. Many amendments to the current Constitution and other legislative acts were adopted in the intensifying struggle of these two political forces. First stage failures liberal reforms strengthen the bloc of the old nomenklatura and contribute to the consolidation of all opposition forces around the legislative power. The goal of the opposition is to completely seize power through the weakening of presidential structures and tight control over the government. It was this goal that was reflected in the slogan “All power to the Soviets!” at numerous rallies of Labor Moscow, the National Salvation Front and other pro-communist organizations. In turn, hardliners surrounded insisted on the dissolution of the Supreme Council and the liquidation of the Congress of People's Deputies. Thus, the “August agreement” was called into question. Taking advantage of its legal uncertainty, various political forces began to “take away” state power piece by piece. Actual dual power, or rather anarchy, provoked the opposition to further redistribute power in its favor. The struggle over the foundations of the constitutional system of Russia continued with varying success until the spring of 1993. The Supreme Council of the Russian Federation, headed by R. I. Khasbulatov, increasingly intervened in the affairs of the executive branch, demanding the resignation of the president. In April 1993, at the insistence of B.N. Yeltsin, a referendum on confidence in the president was held. 58% of those who took part in the voting voted for trust. Nevertheless, the struggle to remove Yeltsin from power continued after the referendum. The constitutional crisis was not overcome. The question of the form of government - presidential or parliamentary republic - became particularly acute. Every day the constitutional crisis took on an increasingly dangerous and destructive character for the country.
The irreconcilable opposition made extensive use of numerous rallies and protest marches to achieve its goals. On May 1, 1993, demonstrators in Moscow on Leninsky Prospekt gave a real battle to the police forces. The intense struggle between the legislative and executive powers continued throughout the summer.
October events of 1993 By the autumn of 1993, Russia found itself in a state of deep political crisis. Its growth is the result of Russia's lack of real experience and stable traditions of democracy and parliamentarism. In the conditions of the beginning of the revolutionary process, several power centers simultaneously appeared in the country, due to which both R. Khasbulatov and B. Yeltsin had grounds to claim leadership in state affairs. Beginning in the spring of 1992, the majority of the deputy corps was aimed at gradually limiting the power and powers of the president and changing the course of reforms.
Under these conditions, B. N. Yeltsin, a staunch supporter of building a rule of law state (which is fully confirmed by the consistent fulfillment of his obligations), took a forced step. To end the protracted political dual power, on September 21, 1993, he issued decree No. 1400 “On gradual constitutional reform,” in which he announced the dissolution of the congress and the Supreme Council and the holding of a referendum on the new Constitution and elections to the bicameral Federal Assembly (State Duma and Council of the Federation). By the same date, it was supposed to complete the work on preparing a new Constitution.
The Presidential Decree formally contradicted a number of articles of the current Constitution, but left the opposition a real opportunity to go to elections and democratically resolve the issue of power.
The opposition rejected the legitimate scenario and launched a decisive attack on the president. On the night of September 23, 1993, the extraordinary Tenth Congress of People's Deputies, at which there was no quorum, adopted a resolution declaring B. N. Yeltsin’s actions a “coup d’etat” and removed him from office. The congress elected Vice-President A.V. Rutsky as acting president. After this, the confrontation between the parties turns into a power struggle. Having received powers, A. Rutskoy creates armed formations, weapons and ammunition are brought to the “White House” (later the military discovered 1,132 weapons - hundreds of machine guns, machine guns, grenade launchers, sniper rifles, - 312 kg of TNT).
On October 1-2, there was still a possibility of a peaceful development of events. Chairman of the Constitutional Court V.D. Zorkin proposed the so-called zero option, the essence of which was to cancel all decisions of the president and the Supreme Council after September 21 and call for simultaneous re-elections of the president and parliament. But the opposition organized mass riots on October 3, 1993 in the center of Moscow on Smolenskaya Square. By 10 o'clock in the evening, armed militants who arrived at the Ostankino television center attempted to storm it.
In this situation, Yeltsin, taking full responsibility, gave the order to send a tank division to Moscow and blockade the White House. As a result of its subsequent assault, there were casualties on both sides, including neither deputies nor leaders of the rebellion. The rebels were arrested.
The events of October 1993 were received ambiguously by various layers of Russian society. And there are still no unambiguous assessments of them in historiography (among the five points of accusation of the left opposition, which initiated the process of removing B.N. Yeltsin from power in May 1998 through impeachment, i.e., through removal from office, there was also unlawful dissolution of 1993 of the opposition Supreme Council).
Regardless of legal and other assessments of the actions of the parties, “Black October” finally destroyed the system of Soviets and Soviet power.
Revival of Russian parliamentarism. In accordance with by decision President On December 12, 1993, elections to the Federation Council and the State Duma took place. Simultaneously with the elections, a referendum was held on the draft of the new Constitution.
Elections on a multi-party basis were held in Russia for the first time after an almost eighty-year break. A real pre-election struggle for votes has unfolded between political parties and blocs. Initially, 35 parties and movements applied to participate in the elections, but only 13 of them managed to register their lists with the Central Election Commission of the Russian Federation, the rest were unable to collect the required 100 thousand voter signatures.
The elections were held in an atmosphere of tension in society caused by the collapse of the USSR and the October putsch. Voters showed their disappointment with the progress of radical reforms. As a result, none of the political parties that supported the president’s course received more than 15% of the votes. total number voters, due to which the State Duma initially turned out to be in opposition to the president. At the same time, by the very struggle for seats in parliament, and then by occupying important posts in it, deputies, including opponents of B.N. Yeltsin, recognized the legitimacy of the “usurper president” and “his Constitution.” Such legitimation generally ensured stability of the constitutional system of Russia for the coming years.
In total, in the elections on December 12, 444 deputies were elected to the State Duma, including 225 in federal and 219 in single-mandate electoral districts. Elections were not held in Tatarstan and Chechnya. Of the 13 electoral associations, only 8 received seats in parliament. Taking into account deputies elected from party lists and on an individual basis, greatest number The “Choice of Russia” party received 76 seats in the State Duma, LDPR - 63, Agrarians - 55, Communist Party of the Russian Federation - 45.
New Constitution of Russia. On December 12, along with the State Duma elections, a referendum on the Constitution also took place. A little more than 50% of those who took part in the voting voted for the draft of the country’s new basic law. The adoption of the Constitution was a major step in the democratic renewal of Russia.
The Russian Constitution of 1993 is the first democratic Constitution in the entire history of the country. It put an end to the ideologization of state power and the entire system of the Soviet totalitarian regime. For the first time in the history of the Russian state, the Constitution established the fundamental principle of modern parliamentarism - the principle of separation of powers. Also for the first time, in accordance with generally accepted world practice, the legislative body was called parliament; its powers were separated from the powers of other government bodies, which allowed it to focus on legislative activities.
By the time the new Constitution was adopted in Russia, new social groups and the party, the formation of the political and economic structures of the new society has not finished. For these reasons, the new Russian Constitution bore the features of a transition period and certain compromises. The most obvious of these is the noticeable imbalance of power between the president and parliament. According to the new basic law, the president has extremely broad powers. It is difficult to impeach him (remove him from office), although such a procedure is laid down (Article 93) in the new Constitution.
A person, his rights and freedoms (and not a collective, a class, a party, as it was before) are called the highest value in the Basic Law. Freedom of speech and freedom of the media were proclaimed, and censorship was prohibited. True, and this is one of the significant shortcomings, rights and freedoms have been pushed out of the main place.
Despite all its shortcomings, for the first time in the history of Russia, a document was adopted in which the level of guaranteed human rights and freedoms and the mechanism for their protection corresponded to the generally recognized principles and norms of international law. Everyone is guaranteed freedom of thought and speech, freedom of the media, and censorship is prohibited.
The new Basic Law, despite the weakness of real counterbalances to the decisions taken by the president, created a very real legal basis for the construction of a democratic federal rule of law state. As a result, already in 1994 Russia had a fully functional bicameral parliament.
Formation of the Federal Assembly. The new Russian Constitution changed the nature of state power, the form of government and the principles of legislative activity. A new, post-Soviet, post-communist stage in the development of Russian statehood has begun.
Unlike the former Supreme Council, the State Duma was initially created as an exclusively professional parliamentary body, where all elected deputies must work on a permanent basis. The jurisdiction of the lower chamber, according to the Constitution, includes the adoption of legislative acts, approval of the state budget and control over its implementation, control over the observance of human rights, and participation in the formation of the Government of the Russian Federation.
The Federation Council (as the upper house of parliament), according to the Constitution of the Russian Federation, represented and defended the interests of 89 constituent entities of the Federation. Therefore, its main function is to review federal laws adopted by the lower house. The composition of the deputy corps of the State Duma of the first convocation mainly reflected the real balance of forces and moods in Russian society. None of the factions in the State Duma had a decisive advantage. At best, the communist and nationalist factions could count on the support of 180-230 deputies when voting, the “buffer factions” - 110-130, and the democratic ones - 100-120. In the lower house, eight factions and one deputy group “New Regional Policy” were created and officially registered. Their composition and political orientations changed several times during the work of the State Duma.
The process of formation of the Federal Assembly was difficult, since its first steps were carried out under strong impact bloody outcome of the confrontation between the President and the Supreme Council.
The most consistent anti-presidential position in the State Duma was occupied by the faction of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF), led by its chairman G. A. Zyuganov (the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, recreated in February 1993, demanded a change in government policy and the restoration of socialism). Having a solid representation in the Duma (45 people), the Communist faction initiated a discussion of the most confrontational issues - about the Commission to investigate the events of October 3-4, about the denunciation of the Belovezhskaya Accords, about the beginning of the presidential impeachment procedure. Nevertheless, the communist opposition was never able to secure a Duma majority on the most important issues. Due to the imperfection of constitutional norms and the transitional nature of the parliament itself, compromise solutions were most often passed during voting. For these reasons, the parliament did not convene in 1993 special success in legislative affairs. The State Duma was able to adopt a new Civil Code of the Russian Federation, federal laws on the elections of the President, State Duma deputies, general principles the structure of state power, local self-government, and the basic guarantees of the electoral rights of Russian citizens.
The State Duma, in accordance with its constitutional law, on February 23, 1994, declared an amnesty for persons under investigation or in custody in connection with the events of August 19-21, 1991, May 1, 1993, September 21 - October 4, 1993. This step, which was primarily political, turned the Duma into an independent center of power. However, the war in Chechnya clearly showed the inability of parliament to control the use of military force by the executive branch.
Nevertheless, the Russian parliament of the first convocation fulfilled its main function: it legitimized the new political and state system.
Chechen crisis. The new Russian Constitution enshrined the main features of the country's federal structure: its state integrity, the division of powers between authorities in the center and locally, the equality of the subjects of the Federation, as well as the signs of equality and self-determination of the peoples of the Russian Federation. According to the Constitution, the federal center has supreme power throughout the entire territory of the state. But as expected, the Constitution did not resolve all issues of the country's federal structure. The equality of the subjects of the Federation was fixed only formally (the Federation still had an “asymmetrical” character). Different regions had different competencies and bore different degrees of responsibility to the state and citizens.
Legislative bodies of republics, territories and regions differ significantly in their legal status, competence, and even in name. As a result, the formation of the national-state structure of Russia largely proceeded spontaneously, under the influence of continuous “bargaining” between the center and the regions on issues of authority and distribution of income.
The weakness of the federal government forced it to sign special bilateral agreements with the subjects of the Federation, as a rule, with the ethnic republics that were richest in their resources.
Thus, in February 1994, an agreement was signed with Tatarstan, which provided the republic with rights and advantages that other subjects of the Federation did not have. Tatarstan has taken over such traditional federal functions as protecting human and civil rights and freedoms, granting or depriving Tatar citizenship, establishing relations with foreign states, and others. However, this agreement made it possible to return Tatarstan to the constitutional space of Russia. Later, similar agreements were signed with other Russian republics. At the same time, Bashkortostan stipulated for itself in the agreement certain rights regarding the budget and taxes.
A bilateral agreement signed by the Russian government and the Republic of Yakutia (Sakha) allowed it not only to collect federal taxes itself, but also to spend them on federal programs. In 1994-1995 20 bilateral agreements were signed with ethnic republics. They allowed local authorities to gain time and satisfy the demands of nationalist forces, and the federal center to avoid forceful pressure in solving national problems.
At the end of 1994, the Russian leadership made an attempt to cut the “Chechen knot”. For three years since the national radicals led by D. Dudayev came to power in the republic, Moscow expected that the regime established by the general would become obsolete, but this did not happen. Over these years, Chechnya has turned into a dangerous source of separatism in the North Caucasus. D. Dudayev’s calls for the creation of a “common Caucasian home of peoples” outside Russia created a real danger of a repeated redistribution of the post-Soviet space and threatened the integrity of the Russian Federation. Chechen separatism threatened to undermine the barely emerging agreement between the center and the regions.
The federal authorities repeatedly tried to establish a dialogue with the regime of D. Dudayev, but the issue rested on the political status of Chechnya. The Chechen authorities stubbornly refused to consider the republic a subject of the Russian Federation. In response, the Russian government applied economic pressure, gradually reducing the supply of Volga and Siberian oil to the Grozny oil refinery, limiting the possibilities of financial fraud with Chechen advice notes.
This tactic has borne some fruit. By the end of 1993, the Dudayev regime was experiencing a serious crisis. The “Independent Republic of Ichkeria” was on the verge of a social explosion. The landslide decline in production, reduction in oil revenues, power outages for the republic's non-payment of debt, and constant armed clashes sharply reduced the number of supporters of D. Dudayev and the sovereignty of Chechnya.
However, the fragmentation and heterogeneity of the opposition forces allowed Dudayev to easily disperse the parliament, the Constitutional Court, and the Grozny city assembly in May-June 1993, when they demanded to limit his power and conduct an investigation into oil fraud.
In the spring of 1994, the Nadterechny district became the all-Chechen center of resistance to D. Dudayev, where the Provisional Council of the Chechen Republic was created, headed by U. Avturkhanov. The denouement came on November 26, when the tank assault on Grozny, ineptly organized by the opposition and, possibly, the Russian special services, ended in complete failure.
After this, the “war party” gains the upper hand in the Russian leadership. On November 30, 1994, President B.N. Yeltsin issued a decree “On measures to restore constitutional legality and order on the territory of the Chechen Republic,” according to which a special group of troops was created to solve this problem. The troops were given only a few days to prepare for military operations. On December 10, 1994, troops of the Ministry of Defense and Internal Affairs entered the territory of Chechnya. From the very beginning, the fighting was unsuccessful for the federal troops. The assault on Grozny New Year's Eve, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Russian military personnel, became a military disaster. The failures of the Russian troops' military operations were explained by the fact that the military was given tasks that could not be accomplished by military means. In addition, the development and logistics of the operation were extremely unsatisfactory. Of the military equipment that entered service with the federal troops in Chechnya, more than 20% was completely faulty, and another 40% was partially faulty. As a result, in the first day of hostilities, federal troops, according to official data alone, lost 72 units of military equipment. A surprise for Russian politicians and the military it turned out that Dudayev had a well-trained army. By the beginning of the events, the Chechen armed forces had 13 thousand people, not counting mercenaries and volunteers from other countries. In Chechnya, after the withdrawal of Russian troops from it in the fall of 1991, a lot of weapons and ammunition were accumulated. But most importantly, by skillfully playing on national feelings and portraying Russia as the enemy of the Chechen people, Dudayev managed to win over the population of Chechnya, who previously occupied a neutral position, to his side. From a bankrupt politician he turned into a national hero. Most of the population of Chechnya perceived the entry of federal troops as an invasion of an enemy army seeking to take away their freedom and independence.
As a result, the operation to restore the rule of law, preserve the integrity of Russia, and disarm the bandits turned into a protracted, bloody war for Russian society, affecting all aspects of life, and above all the economy.
New tasks of Russian foreign policy. The process of adapting Russian foreign policy to new realities in the world turned out to be long and painful. The transitional state of Russian society, the struggle for power, and the severe economic crisis have seriously complicated the development of the concept of national security and a new foreign economic doctrine.
For the above reason, in 1991-1993. The foreign policy of democratic Russia was in many ways a continuation of the “perestroika diplomacy” of M. S. Gorbachev. It was characterized by a desire to integrate into the Western community and world economic structures. The concept of a strategic alliance between Russia and the United States, proclaimed by Foreign Minister A. Kozyrev, which was later transformed into the idea of a strategic partnership, assumed Russia’s loyalty to Western values in exchange for Western assistance in implementing liberal reforms.
During the first two years of liberal reforms in the country, Russian diplomacy, despite mistakes and a limited arsenal of means, managed to solve many problems caused by the collapse of the USSR and the determination of a new international status of the Russian Federation. Russia took the seat held by the USSR in the UN Security Council.
On January 3, 1993, the presidents of the Russian Federation and the United States signed the extremely important Treaty on the Further Reduction and Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START-2), providing for the mutual reduction of the nuclear potential of the two countries by 2003 to the level of 3,500 nuclear warheads. This agreement caused a mixed reaction in Russian society, since at the beginning of the 90s. the stockpiles of nuclear warheads in the USSR amounted to more than 33 thousand, and in the USA - more than 23 thousand, and, therefore, Russia had to destroy a larger number of them.
In October 1993, as a result of the signing of the Tokyo Declaration, important step to normalize relations between our country and Japan.
At the same time, Russian foreign policy in these years clearly lacked strategic depth and initiative. Despite the democratic rhetoric, it still reflected the logic of the Cold War. Kozyrev's diplomacy as a whole brought insignificant results.
Certain miscalculations made in 1991-1992. in Russian-American relations, in politics in the Balkans and especially in relations with neighboring countries forced B. N. Yeltsin already in 1993 to significantly adjust Russia’s foreign policy course.
In the concept of foreign policy, approved in April 1993 by the President, the main attention was paid to the tasks of developing relations with neighboring countries and of Eastern Europe and only then followed the West and other regions of the world.
Thanks to this, bodies coordinating and directing the activities of the CIS, such as the Council of Heads of State and the Council of Heads of Government, began to meet regularly. Cooperation between security and financial structures developed.
However, these real steps towards rapprochement within the CIS clearly revealed the differences in the interests of individual countries of the Commonwealth and their different readiness for further participation in the integration process.
The differences in their economic potential and economic structure significantly complicated the coordination of national and state interests of the CIS member states.
For these reasons, the formation and strengthening of the Commonwealth turned out to be more difficult than it seemed at first. In 1994-1997 processes of demarcation and national self-determination clearly outpaced integration and rapprochement. The republics that became independent built their power and economic structures, finances, and armed forces at an accelerated pace. Attempts to implement real integration, as a rule, did not go beyond numerous statements by leaders and the signing of regular multilateral agreements.
Under these conditions, a multi-speed integration strategy is being developed in the CIS. In 1995, the formation of a customs union began between Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan, which made it possible to ensure freer movement of goods and capital of these states. In March 1996, the Quartet countries signed the Treaty on Deepening Integration in the Economic and Humanitarian Fields. In parallel, the formation of the “two” (the Union of Russia and Belarus), the “single economic space” of the Central Asian countries - Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, and subsequently the “GUAM” - the unification of Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova - was underway in order to develop the Euro-Asian Trans-Caucasian transport corridor. The fragmentation of the Commonwealth into small blocs, as practice has shown, only strengthened centrifugal tendencies and contributed to the orientation of some blocs towards foreign partners.
Since 1994, Russia's foreign policy has gradually changed its character, becoming more and more powerful. Anti-Western sentiments are noticeably increasing in the country, mainly arising as a spontaneous reaction to specific actions of the United States and its allies. At the beginning of 1996, the change of guidelines in foreign policy was reinforced by personnel changes: A. Kozyrev was replaced as Minister of Foreign Affairs by E. Primakov, who had previously been the head of the Foreign Intelligence Service. Having become minister, E. Primakov declared the priority of his activities to be the near abroad, bilateral and multilateral relations with the CIS countries. The real result was achieved only in 1997, when agreements were signed with Belarus and Ukraine. The agreement with Ukraine became possible thanks to a compromise reached on two fundamental issues: the status of the main base of the Black Sea Fleet in Sevastopol and the division of the fleet itself.
During B. N. Yeltsin’s visit to Ukraine in the spring of 1997, the fleet was finally divided, as was its infrastructure.
By the mid-90s. The issue of NATO expansion to the East has become central to Russian diplomacy. In 1990-1991 the leaders of NATO states assured M. Gorbachev that after the unification of Germany and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, NATO would not extend its influence to the East. Western leaders have not kept their promises.
The priority of the new American strategy is to preserve the systems of military-political alliances created by the United States during the Cold War. At the end of 1994, the United States decides on the need to admit former Soviet allies in the war zone to NATO, despite Russia's strong objections.
As a result of persistent negotiations, on May 27, 1997, the fundamental Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between the Russian Federation and NATO was signed in Paris. NATO and Russia no longer view each other as adversaries. Russia received from NATO a formal promise not to permanently station armed forces on the territory of its new members.
In general, the compromise on the issue of NATO expansion improved the situation in Europe and the world. However, NATO's bombing of Yugoslavia erased most of the achievements on the path of rapprochement between Russia and NATO, including agreements on the development of confidence-building measures.
New Eastern policy. As a result of deliberate efforts to intensify Russian eastern policy in 1991-1997. Relations with most countries in the Asia-Pacific region (APR) have reached new levels. Traditionally large-scale ties with India have consistently developed, and active cooperation with Vietnam and Mongolia has resumed.
In April 1996, in Beijing, B.N. Yeltsin and Chinese President Jiang Zemin formulated a course for the development of an equal, trusting partnership. In the new historical conditions, relations between two neighboring states should be built not on ideological proximity, but on mutual benefit and a balance of interests.
A year later, in April 1997, during the state visit of the President of the People's Republic of China to Moscow, a joint Russian-Chinese Declaration on a multipolar world and the establishment of a new international order was signed. This document is important evidence of the coincidence of the conceptual approaches of the parties and the most important trend in the development of modern international relations. In this document, the parties supported the growing trend towards multipolarity in the world.
The main topic of the meeting at top level in Beijing in April 1997, economic issues became the focus. Fierce competition in the Chinese market forces Russia to quickly resolve issues of overcoming the economic crisis and create competitive products, since China in market conditions prefers higher quality products from leading Western countries to traditional Russian machinery and equipment.
In 1993-1997 The Russian-Japanese dialogue has noticeably intensified. For many decades, the development of economic and cultural ties between the two neighboring countries was hampered by the notorious “territorial issue.” Stalin, having refused to sign a peace treaty with Japan in 1951, missed the opportunity to once and for all resolve the dispute over the ownership of the Southern Kuril Islands in his favor.
The possibility of a breakthrough in relations between Tokyo and Moscow appeared only in 1993 after B. N. Yeltsin and Japanese Prime Minister Morihiro Hosakawa signed the Tokyo Declaration, which intended to solve the problem of the “northern territories” on the basis of legality and justice, without dividing into winners and defeated.
After the G7 meeting in Denver, the new Prime Minister of Japan, Hashimoto, proposed to reconsider his country’s foreign policy priorities in the context of the end of the Cold War and, in particular, to radically improve relations with Russia. One of the important reasons for the softening of the Japanese side’s position in relations with Russia is the unstable situation in East Asia, the strengthening of China’s position and, consequently, the need to maintain a balance in the region.
Parliamentary elections of 1995. In the fall of 1994, a new election campaign for elections to the State Duma, whose constitutional powers expired in 1995.
The political crisis gave a powerful impetus to the establishment of a real multi-party system in Russia. For parties that were elected to the State Duma (Choice of Russia, LDPR, DPR, Communist Party of the Russian Federation, APR, PRESS), parliamentary activity becomes the main one. In the first half of 1994, about 50 political parties and 100 socio-political associations were registered in Russia.
A characteristic feature of this time was the regrouping of the main party and political forces: the search for allies and a unifying idea, the formation of election blocs and coalitions. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation, trying to unite the entire left-wing electorate, is updating its political image by combining three different principles in its ideological platform: Marxism, Russian national doctrine and the concept of sustainable development.
By the summer of 1994, E. Gaidar created a right-wing liberal party, called the “Democratic Choice of Russia.” However, with its formation the split in the democratic movement was not overcome. Another right-wing party, Yabloko, led by G. Ya. Yavlinsky, criticized the monetarist “bias” in the activities of the government, E. Gaidar and V. Chernomyrdin and demanded expansion of the powers of the legislative branch.
Unlike the 1993 elections, which were held in extreme political and legal conditions that developed after the cessation of the activities of the Congress of People's Deputies and the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation, the 1995 elections took place in a relatively calm environment. In the fall of 1994, the active formation of pre-election blocs and coalitions of various political trends and orientations began, which reached its apogee by December 1995. Along with the political parties that participated in the 1993 elections, new political associations entered the arena: the “Our Home - Russia” (V. Chernomyrdin, S. Belyaev), “Ivan Rybkin Bloc”, “Congress of Russian Communities”, “Power”, etc. In total, 43 electoral associations and blocs were registered with the Central Election Commission by the beginning of the elections. Such fragmentation, which testified to the immaturity of Russian democracy, led to the fact that most of them failed to overcome the five percent barrier to obtain seats in the State Duma.
According to the voting results, the Communist Party of the Russian Federation received 158 mandates in the State Duma of the second convocation. The success of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation in the elections was associated with the deterioration of the economic situation of the bulk of the population and the lack of noticeable changes for the better, the strengthening of nostalgic sentiments among people, the desire to restore lost social guarantees. In turn, the defeat of radical reformists is the result of fragmentation and inability to unite. On the whole, the relative balance was not disturbed, and the new Russian parliament remained moderately opposed to the executive power.