In 1992, the following events occurred. Constitutional coup twenty years ago

Reforms began with price liberalization in January 1992, which led to the filling of the domestic market with food and industrial goods. However, over the year prices have increased tenfold. The majority of the population received meager salaries and pensions, and cash savings depreciated. The systems of free medicine, education and science that remained without government funding were destroyed. Russia is faced with unemployment. All this led to massive impoverishment of the population.

"SHOCK THERAPY"

In the post-perestroika transition period (1992-1993), following the political formation of the new government in 1991, the economic and constitutional foundations of the new state structure of Russia were approved. At the same time, the new leadership of the country saw the main task in consolidating political changes in Russian society. The Russian economy and its constitutional structure had to come into line with the country's new political system, which implied a transition to a market economy, its demonopolization and privatization, the creation of a class of private entrepreneurs and owners, and the strengthening of the power of the president.

At the V Congress of People's Deputies of the Russian Federation (October 1991), Boris Yeltsin came up with a program of radical economic reforms, providing for the liberalization of prices and wages, freedom of trade and privatization. Given the current difficult economic situation, deputies generally approved the program and even gave the president additional powers to implement it. On November 6-8, 1991, a government was formed headed by B. Yeltsin and two deputy prime ministers: G. Burbulis (responsible for political issues) and E. Gaidar (Minister of Economy and Finance, in charge of economic reform). The government also operated an institute of advisers, where the leading role belonged to the American liberal economist D. Sachs.

On January 2, 1992, the first step towards a market economy was taken - prices and trade were liberalized. According to Deputy Prime Minister E. Gaidar, this was supposed to return money to the role of a spontaneous regulator of prices and production, and lead to the destruction of the monopoly of intermediaries in trading network. However, underestimation of the monopolization of production, as well as the government's self-removal from control over price formation, led to their uncontrollable surge. In January 1992, prices increased by 1000-1200%, and by the end of the year they increased no less than 26 times. At the same time, the increase in wages in 1992 occurred only 12 times. The reform did not provide for the indexation of savings deposits of the population, which led to their immediate depreciation. The government's hopes for large-scale foreign exchange assistance from the West did not materialize either. Under these conditions, the Yeltsin-Gaidar government was unable to fulfill the promised social guarantees when carrying out reforms. The “shock therapy” policy, not supported by Western loans and investments, nevertheless continued, and main goal Stabilization of the financial system, the creation of a deficit-free budget by ending subsidies to unprofitable enterprises and industries, and a reduction in social payments to the population were announced. The stabilization of Russia's finances should have caused, according to Gaidar, an increase in foreign and domestic investment in the Russian economy.

I.S. Ratkovsky, M.V. Khodyakov. History of Soviet Russia

THE THREAT OF HUNGER

The Russian leadership approached the issue of price liberalization in a unique situation, the most important features of which were the following:

— denial by a significant part of the population of the idea of ​​​​introducing free prices,

- distrust of any measures for social protection and maintaining living standards,

- anticipation of hunger,

- growth of discontent.

A poll conducted in November 1991 showed that more than half of Russians did not support the transition to free market prices, only a quarter approved of this measure. Only 9% of citizens participating in the survey expect the situation to improve. Characteristic features of consumer behavior of the population are rush demand, flight from money...

The situation with food supplies to cities in 1991 is reminiscent of the tragic realities of 1917. From Novgorod they reported: “Flour funds for the second half of the year were allocated 6,500 tons less than the actual consumption of last year. All this forced the introduction of a universally rationed (rationed) supply of bread to the population, at the rate of 400 grams per capita.” Yu. Luzhkov reported in November 1991: “The Moscow Government would like to bring to your attention that the supply of food products to the population continues to remain critical... Due to insufficient resources in the amount of 40 thousand tons and the cessation of shipments of animal oil from Ukraine, Estonia, Latvia "and Moldova, trade in it is carried out periodically, there are no remaining animal oils. Under a union contract, 20 thousand tons of animal oil were purchased for import. It is necessary to send the entire purchased volume to Moscow... In January 1992, Moscow may be left without food." Information from the Chita region: “260 g of flour per person has been allocated. This is below the wartime norm, the situation with the provision of bread is critical.”

The difference between 1917 and 1991 was the spirit of the times. In 1917, the world was dominated by the idea that greater government influence over economic life was a good thing. The basis of such beliefs were social problems generated by the beginning of modern economic growth and industrialization. In the beneficence of the direct government regulation at the beginning of the twentieth century, everyone believed: experts, high-ranking officials, politicians. Without taking this into account, it is difficult to understand why the tsarist government, the Provisional Government, and the Bolshevik government, with varying degrees of efficiency and cruelty, pursued a food policy based on the forced confiscation of grain from peasants at prices that did not correspond to market conditions.

Against this intellectual background, V. Lenin’s idea of ​​going to the village for bread with machine guns did not seem like something exotic. He only brought to its logical conclusion what qualified food specialists of that time were thinking about.

In the fall of 1991, when Russia was faced with similar problems of food supply to cities and the threat of famine, the intellectual atmosphere in the world was different. The belief that government regulation of the economy is beneficial has ceased to be an article of faith. In Russia the belief is that government bodies capable of effectively solving the problems facing the country in times of crisis, was undermined by the 70-year-old omnipotence of the state. The government did not seriously discuss the idea that, faced with a grain shortage, it could be obtained by sending armed troops to grain-rich regions. Bread major cities was necessary. It is impossible to confiscate it. There is no currency to buy it abroad. There is only one thing left: to get food by paying a price that will be acceptable to its producers. Actually, this is the essence of price liberalization, a path similar to the one that V. Lenin took in 1921, when he was faced with the threat of losing power.

As then, the liberalization of prices in 1991 itself did not guarantee a solution to the problem of supplying cities with food. The key question was: would the village sell grain to the city for unreliable, depreciating rubles? It depended on this whether the catastrophic scenario of the events of the Russian Revolution of the early twentieth century would repeat itself.

Autumn 1991 Russian authorities decided not to send food detachments to the villages, but to form a free food market, without guarantees that the money supply could be kept under control and inflation would not reach a level at which grain producers would refuse to sell bread to the city.

In October 1991, we assumed that it was possible to postpone price liberalization until mid-1992, and by then create levers of control over money circulation in Russia. A few days after starting work in the government, having become familiar with the picture of the food supply of large Russian cities, was forced to admit that delaying liberalization until July 1992 was impossible. In this case, by the summer of 1992 we will find ourselves approximately where the Bolsheviks were in the summer of 1918. The only possible line of economic policy remaining that would give a chance of preventing a catastrophe was the liberalization of prices, the reduction of state-controlled expenses, and the speedy separation of the Russian monetary system from the monetary systems of other post-Soviet states. It was about developments in a nuclear power, the stability of which largely depended on what would happen to the food supply of cities. The decision was one of the riskiest in world history.

Materials of the first meeting Russian government, formed in November 1991, clearly show that in those days no one knew how to solve an impossible problem. Hence the hesitation as to when and how to liberalize prices, and how to combine this with ensuring control over money circulation. It was only clear that the country found itself in an extreme situation...

Having abandoned the idea of ​​​​sending food detachments to the villages, the government could make only one decision: to introduce market prices for food. As the experience of 1917-1921 showed, if free trade is not interfered with, then even with disorganization money circulation there are chances that the supply of the cities will be satisfactory. No one could know whether this would work out in practice, but there was no other way out. The hope that the market would work was the motive behind the decision to liberalize prices on January 2, 1992.

Almost everyone understood that this decision would be unpopular. This was confirmed by a survey conducted by VTsIOM in January - February 1992. But this decision saved the country. Let us note that the Union leadership, faced with an economic crisis, possessing an army, the KGB, and leading a multimillion-dollar party, did not dare to liberalize prices. It chose to close its eyes and hope that the situation would resolve itself.

E.T. Gaidar. Troubles and institutions

LIBERALIZATION OF PRICES AND RESIGNATION OF GAIDAR

From January 2, prices for the vast majority of goods (with the exception of bread, milk, alcohol, as well as utilities, transport and energy) were freed, and regulated ones were increased. A 28 percent value added tax has been introduced.

In addition to price liberalization, restrictions on imports were temporarily lifted and a zero import tariff was established. It was free imports that played a catalytic role in the development of private market trade in early 1992.

On January 29, 1992, Russian President Boris Yeltsin signed the Decree “On Free Trade”. In accordance with this decree, enterprises, regardless of their form of ownership, and citizens were given the right to carry out trade, intermediary and purchasing activities without special permits. The exception was the trade in weapons, explosives, toxic and radioactive substances, drugs, medicines etc. All this led to a gradual saturation of the consumer market and an increase in inventory in retail trade.

At the same time, the country’s economy showed such negative phenomena, such as a crisis of mutual non-payments by enterprises, a cash shortage that caused acute social tension, a decrease in tax revenues to the budget, and inflation.

In his speeches on the eve of liberalization, Gaidar spoke of an upcoming initial price increase of 200-300%. In fact, in January 1992 their growth compared to the previous month was 352%.

In April 1992, at the VI Congress of People's Deputies of Russia, the government's economic policy was sharply criticized. On April 11, the Congress adopted a Resolution “On the Progress of Economic Reform in the Russian Federation”, in which: it noted a number of problems in the economy: a decline in production, the destruction of economic ties, a decline in the standard of living of the population, growing social tension, lack of cash; invited the President of Russia to make significant adjustments to the tactics and methods of implementing economic reform, taking into account comments and suggestions.

On April 13, Gaidar announced the resignation of the government, citing the fact that the resolution on the progress of reforms adopted at the Congress actually meant the disagreement of the deputies with the economic course pursued by the government, and the additional budget expenditures envisaged by it would not allow this course to be implemented without catastrophic consequences for the economy.

In this situation, a compromise was found: the congress adopted a Declaration of Support for Economic Reforms, in which the norms of the adopted Resolution on the progress of economic reform were softened.

After the VI Congress, the “Medium-Term Economic Concept of the Government” began to be developed, which provided for a reduction in the share of regulated prices and volumes of government procurement, the deployment of mass privatization, and bringing energy prices to global levels only within 2 years.

In fact, under pressure from deputies and directors of state enterprises, financial policy became less harsh. In combination with the significant seasonality of some economic processes for Russia, the unsettled financial relations with the CIS countries, which led to the simultaneous functioning of many ruble issuing centers, the lack of control of the government of the Central Bank of Russia, this led to the end of the period of relative financial stability and the development of a new inflationary spiral in the late summer - early autumn of 1992.

In the fall, the government was again criticized with demands to restore price regulation and increase direct government intervention in processes occurring in the national economy.

In December 1992, the VII Congress of People's Deputies did not approve Yegor Gaidar as chairman of the Council of Ministers. After Viktor Chernomyrdin was confirmed as head of government, Gaidar was dismissed.

The activities of Yegor Gaidar are assessed ambiguously. On the one hand, his price reform in January 1992, which actually meant the abandonment of state regulation of prices for most goods, including essential goods, made it possible to almost instantly replenish store shelves that had been completely empty in previous years. However, while maintaining the population's income unchanged, this led to a catastrophic drop in living standards.

Reformers managed to reduce the state budget deficit and transfer the Soviet planned economy to a free market, but side effect their actions resulted in hyperinflation and economic crisis.

Experts are still debating whether it was the reforms of Gaidar and his supporters or the decades of ineffective Soviet rule that preceded them that caused the collapse of the Russian economy in the early 1990s.

Bagdasaryan V.E.

October 1993... What is the historical semantics of the events that happened 20 years ago? A direct consequence of what happened was the adoption of a new Constitution. This Constitution banned the state ideology of Russia. In essence, an external ideological project was adopted. A type of non-sovereign model of statehood was established.

Currently, judging by public opinion polls, the majority supports the side of the Supreme Council in those events. But if we proceed from the position of the majority, then an appropriate audit of the results of what happened must be carried out. And the following happened...

In 1993, a constitutional revolution took place in Russia. The president was at the head of this coup. According to the 1977 Constitution in force at that time, the highest legislative body was the Congress of People's Deputies. He had the right to demand an account from the president and the removal of 2/3 of his votes from office. At the congress, the Supreme Council was elected - a legislative body constantly operating between its convocations. The head of government (prime minister) could only be appointed with the agreement of the Supreme Council. All these constitutional restrictions in relation to the president were initially able to be circumvented on the basis of the resolution of the Fifth Congress in 1991 on granting “special powers” ​​to B.N. Yeltsin. But the provided carte blanche expired in December 1992. Given the failure of the ongoing reforms, the further political fate of B.N. Yeltsin and the elite associated with him was in question.

Understanding this threat, the president, on December 10, 1992, called on his supporters to leave the Seventh Congress. In his address, the president spoke about the “impossibility of working with the Congress of Deputies,” which refused to extend his special powers and demanded a change in the head of government. Even then, Yeltsin's first coup policy was undertaken. But it failed. Having maintained a quorum, the Congress removed the radical monetarist E.G. Gaidar from the post of head of government, appointing instead a compromise figure of the former Minister of the USSR Gas Industry V.S. Chernomyrdin.

A new attempt at a “non-forceful coup” was made by B.N. Yeltsin in March 1993, when the president signed the unconstitutional decree “On a special order of government.” But this approach was blocked by the joint efforts of the Supreme Council, the Constitutional Court, the Prosecutor General's Office, and the Security Council.

Then it was decided to enlist the support of the people, for which a referendum on confidence in the president and parliament was launched. It was assumed that due to the control of the media, as well as “ideological and material assistance from foreign colleagues,” B.N. Yeltsin would be able to achieve the desired result. However, contrary to reports about the unconditional victory of Yeltsin’s course, the referendum did not give an absolute advantage to any of the parties. When counting votes from the number of voters, the confidence of B.N. Yeltsin was opposed by 58.7% of people, his reforms were supported by 53.0%, 49.5% supported the need for early re-election of the President, and 67.2% of the Supreme Council. If we count all potential voters (and a referendum is, as we know, a popular expression of will and should procedurally differ from the next elections), the “successes” of the Yeltsin team already appear as a defeat: only 37.6% of the electorate declared confidence in B.N. Yeltsin 34% about support for his policies, 32.6% for the re-election of the president, 41.4% for the Supreme Council.

The statistics on “invalid ballots” are particularly indicative. The most critical position for B.N. Yeltsin was on the issue of re-election of the president. Only 0.5% of the votes were not enough for a negative verdict for him. And it is precisely by this indicator that the largest number of spoiled ballots is recorded. It is noticeably dissonant with all relevant indicators for other survey items. And, as you know, one extra icon is enough to invalidate the ballot. A paradox has arisen: 58.7% trust the president, but at the same time 49.5% demand his re-election.

After all these failures, obviously, a decision is made to resolve the conflicts between the president and the Supreme Council by force. Meanwhile, parliament is taking a number of steps expressing its desire to expand the vector of development planned by liberal reformers. Materials on the denunciation of the Belovezhskaya Accords as an illegal decision of the Supreme Council, which assumed the powers of the Congress or referendum, were transferred to the Constitutional Court. The transfer of the Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic to Ukraine was also determined to be illegal. The proposal to ratify the START-2 strategic arms reduction treaty was categorically rejected as being disruptive to Russia’s security. An attempt is being made to create mechanisms to deprive the liberal Yeltsin team of its monopoly over the media. For this purpose, the Federal Council for Ensuring Freedom of Speech in State Media is established, and changes are adopted to the federal legislation on the press. Everything was leading to the fact that at the upcoming Tenth Congress of People's Deputies in November 1993, B.N. Yeltsin was to lose the presidency.

The events that took place exactly a month before directly point to the interest of the coup that took place. Parliament was declared the organizer of the conspiracy. B.N. Yeltsin, in his address of October 6, 1993, spoke of “an armed rebellion planned and prepared by the Supreme Council.” His goal was nominated as “the establishment of a bloody communist-fascist dictatorship in Russia.” This is a well-known and even universal tactical method of conspirators - to declare in a conspiracy to prepare a coup those against whom the coup is actually directed. If today a conspiracy arises to remove the Prime Minister of the Russian Federation from power, then there is no doubt that he himself will be presented as the main conspirator according to this scenario.

By the decree of September 21, 1993 “On stage-by-stage constitutional reform in the Russian Federation,” the current Constitution was abolished, the Supreme Council was dissolved, elections of a new parliament and voting on the new Basic Law were scheduled.

None of the nominated decisions had legal force within the framework of the current legislation. The coup was, in fact, carried out. There was little left to do - a technical operation to suppress supporters of the previous government system.

The path of compromises in the revolution phase can lead to disruption of the entire technological operation. Apparently, the developers of Yeltsin’s power interception technology understood this well. The possibility of any compromise was excluded in advance. All proposals received, in particular, from the Constitutional Court, the meeting of the leaders of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, the Russian Orthodox Church about returning to the original pre-conflict situation were rejected by B.N. Yeltsin. The decision was also ignored supreme body power in Russia - the convened extraordinary 10th Congress of People's Deputies on simultaneous coups of the President and the Supreme Council no later than March 1994.

Today there is ample evidence that Yeltsin's headquarters had a pre-developed plan for the use of military force. It also indicated the timing of the decisive blow - October 3-4. A few days before the bloody events, Press Minister M.N. Poltoranin sent a note to media managers in which he called for “an understanding of the measures that the president will take on October 4.” Management of the Institute named after. Sklifosovsky received instructions the day before to prepare an additional 300 beds. As early as October 1st, information about a possible shootout and subsequent assault on the House of Soviets on October 3rd was received by airborne units stationed in Moscow. So official version that the presidential forces were only repelling a blow inflicted by supporters of the Supreme Council does not correspond to the reconstructed chronology of the formation of the conspiracy. The action of the crowd of demonstrators near the White House was programmed from Yeltsin's headquarters. Since the beginning of the mass demonstration on Oktyabrskaya Square on October 3, the riot police for some reason have been withdrawing their forces. The crowd is demonstratively, no one bothers. She is provoked to use force. Such a provocation was shots fired from the city hall and the Mir Hotel (it housed the operational headquarters of the internal troops of the Ministry of Internal Affairs). In response, the crowd breaks into the mayor's office and, in the euphoria of success, heads to the television center. Official media reported that militants had seized two floors of the Ostankino complex. Television broadcasts were turned off. And only after the fact of the events it became clear that not a single militant entered the television center building. Yes, and could not penetrate. It contained special forces of the division named after. Dzerzhinsky, while there were no more than 20 armed persons among the demonstrators. It is still not clear who fired the first shot. According to numerous testimonies, it was fired from the direction of the Ostankino building, injuring one of Makashov’s machine gunners. The subsequent firefight, conducted mainly from the television center, government armored vehicles and the roofs of nearby houses, was an imitation of a battle. Through organizational provocation, the Yeltsin team obtained the moral right to shed blood.

It is characteristic that the Russian and international democratic community assessed Yeltsin’s coup as necessary measures to establish legal order.

When covering the conflict between the branches of power in Russia, the Western media invariably presented B.N. Yeltsin under the marker “legally elected president”, “the only legal and popularly elected government”, the consumer of information was programmed with the corresponding attitude:

the president is “legal”, and the deputies of the Supreme Council are illegal. Of course, without the appropriate sanction from the West, B.N. Yeltsin would never have decided to carry out the campaign he carried out in 1993. power transformation. B.N. Yeltsin himself admitted in his memories of negotiations on a coup scenario with German Chancellor Helmut Kohl: “I wanted to discuss with him a question that was fundamental to me: if I go to limit the activities of parliament, how... The West will react to my actions... He supported me, expressing confidence that other G7 leaders would also react with understanding to tough but necessary measures.” The mandate from the United States was probably received by the Russian President during his visit to Vancouver in April 1993. The words spoken by B.N. Yeltsin in January 1994 are characteristic in this regard. during a press conference organized on the occasion of B. Clinton's reception in Moscow: "We are in the thick of a Russian-American joint revolution." The recognition is exhaustive.

The texts of Russian media from October 1993 show how it is possible to substitute the content of a coup using appropriate information methods. One such example is provided by the “letter of the 42” published on October 5 in Izvestia - “Writers demand decisive action from the government”:

"...The fascists took up arms, trying to seize power. Thank God, the army and law enforcement agencies were with the people, they did not split... These stupid scoundrels respect only strength. So isn’t it time to demonstrate it to our young, but already, as we are again with joyful We were surprised to see that democracy had become strong enough?... We must this time firmly demand from the government and the president:... All types of communist and nationalist parties, fronts and associations must be dissolved... Prosecutors, followed, judges who patronize this kind of socially dangerous crime must immediately be removed from work... The press organs, which incite hatred day after day... must be closed pending trial... Recognize as illegitimate not only the Congress of People's Deputies, the Supreme Council, but also all the bodies formed by them (including the Constitutional Court)... More history once gave us a chance to take a big step towards democracy and civilization. Let's not miss this chance...!"

The apotheosis of Yeltsin democracy! This kind of text, once and for all, it would seem, should have disavowed liberal ideology in Russia. The letter is clearly extremist in nature. However, its signatories are the literary democratic elite, cult figures new Russia- Ales Adamovich, Anatoly Ananyev, Artem Afinogenov, Bella Akhmadulina, Grigory Baklanov, Zori Balayan, Tatyana Bek, Alexander Borshchagovsky, Vasil Bykov, Boris Vasiliev, Alexander Gelman, Daniil Granin, Yuri Davydov, Daniil Danin, Andrey Dementyev, Mikhail Dudin, Alexander Ivanov, Edmund Iodkovsky, Rimma Kazakova, Sergei Kaledin, Yuri Karyakin, Yakov Kostyukovsky, Tatyana Kuzovleva, Alexander Kushner, Yuri Levitansky, Dmitry Mikhachev, Yuri Nagibin, Andrey Nuykin, Bulat Okudzhava, Valentin Oskotsky, Grigory Pozhenyan, Anatoly Pristavkin, Lev Razgon, Alexander Rekelchuk, Robert Rozhdestvensky, Vladimir Savelyev, Vasily Selyunin, Yuri Chernichenko, Andrey Chernov, Marietta Chudakova, Mikhail Chulaki, Victor Afanasyev.

At the very climax of hostilities on October 4, the radio station “Echo of Moscow”, through the mouth of Yu. Chernenko, appealed to the authorities with the appeal “Crush the reptile!” The term “reptile” meant all the authorities listed in the above document. Congress of People's Deputies, Supreme Council, Constitutional Court.

Also characteristic is B.N. Yeltsin’s congratulations on his victory, received from Dzh. Dudayev. Then, back in October 1993, they acted as allies. “The Government of the Chechen Republic,” wrote D. Dudayev, “approves of your actions to suppress the communist-fascist rebellion in Moscow,

whose goal was to seize power in Russia and drown democracy in blood... Please accept, Mr. President, the assurances of my high respect.”

Of course, a constitutional revolution took place in Russia in 1993, if only because all the actions of B.N. Yeltsin’s team were unconstitutional. But if this is so, then the Constitution of 1993, and privatization, and in general everything coming from the authorities over a twenty-year period turns out to be illegitimate. Of course, such a formulation of the question contains known risks. But it is also obvious that the very foundation of the modern state needs to be changed. And for this it is impossible to do without stating its initial illegitimacy.

The Chinese have long noticed that periods alternate, intricately intertwining characteristics. They compiled their knowledge into a treatise known as the Chinese Zodiac. To understand its nuances, let's look at an example. Here, 1992 - what animal? How is it characterized and, most importantly, different from others? How does it affect people born during this period?

1992 is the year of whom according to the horoscope?

Let's begin with Chinese horoscope forms a combination of twelve animals with the four elements. But that is not all. Further, any sign obtained from this plexus is painted with a certain color, giving the period additional features. So, if we consider the year 1992, what animal it is, its elements and color, we get the answer: Monkey, water, black. There are only three signs. But these are the key symbols, based on which all other characteristics for 1992 are created. The eastern horoscope allows you to describe those who were born during this period, what it will bring to other people, how to spend it, and so on. Let's look at the gifts and pitfalls of the year.

Personality characteristics

The Monkey imparts its own characteristics to those whose birth dates include 1992. Whatever animal you take, there are generally accepted characteristics. Thus, a monkey in our imagination is associated with cunning, energy, some
naivety.

To a certain extent, people born during this period adopt such qualities. Only they are strengthened by the element of water, as explained in the Chinese horoscope. 1992 gave the world purposeful individuals (this is not from a monkey), restrained and very talented. They are friendly and have every opportunity to become the life of the party. They treat professional activities responsibly, perform their duties quickly, skillfully, observing deadlines and standards. They value knowledge. They study all their lives, sparing no time and energy. The horoscope claims that there are no other people who are as capable of achieving goals as those who were given life in 1992. What animal's horoscope can rival such extraordinary characteristics? But not everything is so wonderful. These people have negative traits(as everybody).

What should these individuals be wary of?

It is clear that 1992, no matter what kind of monkey it is, will throw several not-so-pleasant “gifts” into the character of its “offspring.” The most difficult thing to overcome is the rejection of criticism. This is where the negative monkey traits come into play. A person believes that he is his own authority. There is no other opinion for him. Therefore, he can only treat favorably those who support him. He perceives criticism as a personal insult. How so, he knows better what to do! Therefore, the answer to the question: “1992 is the year of which animal?” can be supplemented with the following characteristic: smart, but irreconcilable.

By the way, they have the right to do this. Because they don’t shift responsibility for their decisions onto someone else’s shoulders.

About compatibility

It is impossible to consider and not touch upon the issue of his interaction with others. When you ask yourself the question of which monkey is 1992, compatibility comes out to one of the first places. The fact is that it is complex and multifaceted. Abstractly, it can be imagined as a metallic black river flowing powerfully along its bed. How to interact with such a person? What can be done to prevent this directed flow of meaningful energy from being crushed by its inexorable force? The Chinese believe that these people should consider relationships with the Horse and the Rat as promising. Alliances with the Tiger, Ox or Dog can become very problematic. And another question about 1992, what animal (compatibility is meant) does he not tolerate? Who won't get along with at all? It turns out that there are none. The Black Monkey, strengthened by the element of water, makes a person quite flexible. He gets along more or less with everyone, although intimacy can only be deep with the above-mentioned
signs.

About the profession

It is believed that there is no specialty or area of ​​activity where these Monkeys would not be successful. The fact is that intelligence is combined with dexterity and cunning. They can become excellent advertisers. Especially in this age of the Internet. If perseverance is cultivated in this person’s character, then all other natural data will be enough for him to build a career in diplomacy. He is smart, and his intellect is flexible and strives for constant self-improvement (by nature). These Monkeys have innate artistic abilities, which they do not realize until old age. It is completely normal for them to play different roles. Children born during this period need to be aimed at a career where they will have to constantly move and learn new things, otherwise they will “wither away.”

About communication

Very important point how a person knows how to build a conversation and generally communicate with others. Those whose year of birth falls in Monkey are masters of communication. And it’s not even that they convey their thoughts perfectly and listen perfectly to their interlocutor. They also have perfect memory, which helps them in making contacts. They always know how to remind themselves in time greeting card or to the topic of the expressed thought. What hinders them is arrogance, which must be overcome. The fact is that the Monkey can at one moment, under the influence of his mood, destroy everything that he has worked long and painstakingly on. Regrets cannot mend what is broken. You'll have to start your work again. And you just had to hold your tongue so as not to offend a significant person.

How will their lives turn out?

In childhood and adolescence, these people are real lucky ones. Everything works out for them. They receive as much affection and attention as is necessary for harmonious development. Difficulties overtake these Monkeys in the middle of the journey. At this time, chaos associated with the organization of your personal life or career is possible. And it's not about them. It is simply necessary to solve certain problems related to spiritual growth. At this time, these people need help. They themselves will not think of asking for support. Their old age will be quiet and calm. The Chinese horoscope warns that they may die in a foreign land, far from loving hearts.

What kind of parents are they?

People born under the sign of the Water Monkey are slightly indifferent to children. This applies to both men and women. No, they will not throw their offspring to their grandmothers, but they will not shake over them, moved by every step. It is best for them to perform parental functions based on friendship. Then you can build strong partnerships with children and not lose their affection and love. Monkeys are generous but selfish. They need to realize and accept this trait of their character. But, despite a certain alienation, their offspring are very proud of their parents, often becoming their right hand in the family business.

Special Features

Naturally, the Monkey endows his charges with a zest, without which they could not get what raises many of them to the peak of fame (to one degree or another). This trait is magnificent, subtle. Their jokes are so sophisticated and charming that many people fall under the spell. Sometimes this humor becomes evil, turning into sarcasticness. But friends forgive, and Monkeys are not inclined to pay attention to everyone else. Moreover, mental creativity, expressed in humor, helps their professional activities.

Often they can earn more with masterful play on words than years of painstaking work. Women born under the sign of the Water Monkey are endowed with the charm of harmonious maturity. People immediately pay attention to them, trying to “look into the soul.” There is a certain magnetism in these seemingly modest girls.

If a person born in 1992 appears in your circle of friends, then take a closer look at this still young person. Most likely, it will seem to you that he is a quiet and hard worker, destined to spend his whole life in the shadow of someone else's glory. It's not like that at all. It’s just that these people are not inclined to open up to everyone they meet. The time has not yet come when their main goal will begin to take on visible features. Rest assured, they are already working on it. If you manage to become their trusted representative, you can eventually receive dividends that are not inferior in size to those paid by large corporations. It’s worth putting up with their intrusiveness and sometimes annoying causticism. The heyday of these individuals will be in 2020, that is, it will coincide with the time of prosperity of Russia!

So, having dealt with 1992, we can draw the following conclusion. This is the period ruled by the Black Monkey, who is under the influence of water. This is a complex and multifaceted sign. People who are lucky enough to come under his influence will live a bright and eventful life.

Picture of the day in newspaper excerpts and quotes. This day is December 28th - Monday. Based on materials from the newspaper Izvestia.

“Izvestia” / Founder: Journalistic collective “Izvestia” - 1992. - December 28, Monday. — No. 279 (23853). — 8 stripes.

“A new treaty between Russia and the United States may be ready by the new year”- Page 1

"The main characters— US Secretary of State Lawrence Eagleburger, Russian Foreign Minister Andrei Kozyrev and Russian Defense Minister Pavel Grachev, the results of whose meeting determine whether the START II Treaty will be signed at the beginning of the year, have begun negotiations in Geneva.

There is much to suggest that the task facing the delegations of preparing the treaty for signing before the end of US President George W. Bush's term in office is quite feasible. Both Washington and Moscow expressed their readiness to meet the remaining time before the change of the American administration. Moreover, Washington views Grachev’s participation in the negotiations as a signal from President Yeltsin that Russia does not intend to delay the conclusion of the agreement.<…>

So, first of all, the negotiations will touch upon the problem of launch silos of strategic missiles with multiple independently targetable warheads, which in the West are called SS-18. Russia would like to retain some of these silos, which will be freed after the 154 missiles under the treaty are destroyed.<…>».

“Unpopular measures of the Ukrainian government”- Page 1

«<…>Noteworthy is the fact that the Chairman of the Cabinet of Ministers spoke on television when the square opposite the Supreme Council of Ukraine was already crowded with people and a spontaneous rally was taking place. Workers of several enterprises in Kyiv, including the famous Arsenal, came to the walls of parliament demanding the repeal of new government decrees in the field of prices. The cost of travel on public transport has increased 10 times, bread has risen in price by 4-6 times, new payments for apartments are being introduced in January... Speakers at the rally insisted that the Supreme Council revoke the right temporarily granted to the Cabinet of Ministers to issue legislative decrees in the field of economics. Saturday's spontaneous rally near the walls of the Ukrainian parliament was the first act of public expression of dissatisfaction with the actions of the government headed by L. Kuchma.<…>

The situation with prices in the republic has developed in such a way that great amount the most necessary products had to be subsidized from the state budget. If everything is left as it is, L. Kuchma said, then in 1993 five trillion karbovanets would have been required for production subsidies. And the projected budget revenues next year amount to only two trillion karbovanets. This means that the state would not have a single penny left for pensions and scholarships, for the salaries of doctors and teachers, defense and science, culture and education.<…>».

“The peasants receive 80 billion rubles”- Page 1

“The Russian government decided not to remain in debt to agriculture in 1992 and in the last December days to direct previously envisaged investments, subsidies, compensations and other payments totaling almost 80 billion rubles from the budget to the agricultural sector.<…>

The point is not only that, according to farmers, there are still not enough funds provided for the development of a new way of life. At first, state support for peasant farms was provided through the Association of Peasant Farms and Agricultural Cooperatives of Russia (AKKOR), now these funds are supposed to be channeled through government agencies, through local budgets.<…>

The share of products grown on peasant farms also becomes noticeable, for example - more than 3.5 million tons of grain, more than a million tons of potatoes. Of course, many farmers are still just settling in, but 110 thousand farms have already sown and harvested crops this year. Financial position farmers are in dire need right now. But I am convinced that it will only get worse if even those modest budget funds for the development of farming are channeled not through farmer self-government bodies, but through government agencies...<…>».

“The problems of the CIS are being solved in the Tauride Palace”- Page 1

“December 28 at 10 a.m. Great hall The second plenary meeting of the Interparliamentary Assembly of the CIS countries opened at the Tauride Palace.

Speaker of the Russian Parliament R. Khasbulatov and Chairman of the Petrosovet A. Belyaev addressed the high-level meeting with a welcoming speech. The agenda for the next three days of the meeting, which was approved by the Council of Elders, includes eleven issues. The first among them are “On constitutional reforms” and “On the results of agreements on the convergence of national legislations”...<…>

The Interparliamentary Assembly also intends to consider issues of the customs service (the project was developed by representatives of Kyrgyzstan) and agreed upon principles of economic legislation. The agenda includes the adoption of a decision on the press organs of the assembly...<…>».

“Frightening unemployment forecasts did not come true”- Page 1

“As you know, as of December 1, 518 thousand unemployed were registered in Russia. By January 1, no more than 650 thousand are expected. Even the most optimistic of the mass of forecasts - Gaidar's forecast - gave a figure ten times higher.

Let us remember what scientists and politicians reported about a year ago.

“Recent years have brought problems to the labor market - real unemployment has arisen (experts estimate the number of unemployed at 4-12 million people),” V. Supyan, head of the sector at the Institute of the USA and Canada of the Russian Academy of Sciences.<…>

Finally, E. Gaidar’s forecast: “It is unlikely that unemployment will become widespread by the end of the year. Six million - yes, but even that is an inflated figure. However, unemployment will continue to rise."

So, the predictions did not come true. However, not only the dynamics of processes in the employment market remain alarming, but also the prospect of mass layoffs looming on the horizon.<…>».

“Eduard Shevardnadze - for dialogue between Tbilisi and Moscow”- Page 1

“Georgian leader Eduard Shevardnadze said that as a result of military operations undertaken by Georgian troops in recent days, railway communication with Sukhumi has been restored.

He spoke on the radio. Answering a question about possible negotiations between the military ministers of Georgia and Russia in Moscow, E. Shevardnadze noted that their holding is still in question...<…>».

“In Kazakhstan it is expected new round prices"- Page 1

“Prime Minister of Kazakhstan Sergei Tereshchenko informed members of the Supreme Council that the total amount of funds aimed at containing food prices in the republic exceeded 50 billion rubles in 1992.

In the fourth quarter alone, 11 billion subsidies were allocated to producers of meat, milk and eggs. However, it is not possible to correct the situation with prices...<…>».

“Holidays have begun on the stock exchanges”— page 2

“Compared to December last year, when there was a rush on the stock exchanges on the eve of price liberalization, this year is ending much calmer.

Business activity has decreased. Over the past week, on the RTSB, for example, in the food products group, only a deal was concluded on sugar. The number of transactions on MTB also decreased, and the consolidated price index did not budge over the week. However, even without data on last week these two exchanges are among the undisputed leaders of the year in terms of turnover: RTSB - about 40 billion rubles, MTB - about 20 billion.<…>».

“Refugees on the Tajik-Afghan border are a problem for two countries”— page 2

«<…>There are currently about 90 thousand refugees in the immediate vicinity of the border on the Tajikistan side. According to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, more than 50 thousand people have already crossed into Afghan territory. Most of them, in fact, were hijacked under threat of death by militants of forces opposed to the current Tajik government retreating to the neighboring side.<…>

One of the main problems that has arisen in connection with the aggravation of the situation at the border is the return of refugees from Afghanistan home. According to the State Committee for National Security of Tajikistan, special zones are now being created in the state on the opposite bank of the Pyanj for the compact accommodation of forced Tajik migrants. However, ensuring even simple living wage It's very difficult for these people.<…>».

“Mikhail Poltoranin: “We are engaged state structure, and the fourth estate should help with this"— page 2

«<…>— The Ministry of Press and Information has turned into a huge monster, a monopolist. It combines a lot of functions: it has thousands of enterprises - printing, paint production, offset plate production, chemical and so on. The ministry has hundreds of publishing houses. It is the founder and co-founder of many publications and 89 television and radio companies.<…>

So, the ministry keeps legal regulation- this is the main thing. In addition, he will have book publishing activities, book trading, so that later he will release this to the Printing Fund. And the center, which reports to the president, took upon itself the coordination of funds mass media. These are Ostankino, the Federal Television and Radio Broadcasting Service - the third all-Russian television and radio company, information agencies ITAR-TASS and RIA, 89 regional television and radio companies.<…>

...Today the president has, as it were, moved away from economic activity; there is a government and there is a prime minister elected by the congress. The government takes responsibility for economic reforms. The President was freed up for political work, primarily for the state development of Russia. This is the implementation of the concept of the Russian state that the president has. To implement this concept, he must have the tools. One tool is economic reform, the second is political reform. This second task falls on our shoulders.<…>».

“The Party of Labor of Ukraine was established”— page 2

“The founding congress of the Labor Party of Ukraine took place in Donetsk. 14 regions, the city of Kyiv, as well as the Republic of Crimea sent a total of 320 delegates to the congress, and, according to the existing situation, it was authorized to found a new all-Ukrainian party.<…>

The new party, not yet really born, immediately came under fire from criticism. They began to reproach her for not seeing the realities of today's life, because in both Russia and Ukraine everything has already been done to establish national currencies, and a return to the ruble is impossible, that borders already exist de facto, that the thesis of “federal land structure" of Ukraine is decisively rejected by the national consciousness as a path leading to the dismemberment of a young independent state.<…>».

“Parliament punishes a deputy and threatens a journalist”— page 2

«<…>The VII Congress of People's Deputies adopted, among others, a decision that passed somehow unnoticed on the incompatibility of maintaining the status of a deputy with working in the government - including in deputy positions. ministers (previously, only the first heads of ministries and departments resigned their parliamentary powers).

Actually, I know only two such deputies - Bela Denisenko and Vladimir Varov, so with a high degree of probability I can assume that the resolution was adopted “for them” - as part of the steady work to bring the deputy corps into a completely homogeneous state.<…>

On Friday, at the very end of the evening meeting, when the parliamentarians were already heated beyond all measure by a two-hour discussion of the “Georgian question,” fifteen minutes before the end of the meeting one of the deputies stood up and proposed discussing a topic that, of course, did not tolerate delay. The fact is that the day before, journalist A. Cherkizov made a comment on the Ekho Moskvy radio station, and the press center of the Supreme Council immediately distributed his text among the deputies.<…>».

“Scientists warn about the dangers of biological experiments on humans”— page 2

“Alexander Baev, Oleg Gazenko, Boris Petrovsky, Pavel Simonov, Boris Yudin and other famous scientists called for immediately placing experiments on humans and animals under strict ethical control. The whole world has already done this. Russia - no.

The absence of such control threatens us with new, now biological Chernobyls. After all, our country ranks among the first in the world in terms of the volume of biomedical research. It is almost unambiguous to predict the powerful development of the microbiological industry in the Russian Federation. And we essentially do not have any restrictions that insure us against unpredictable harmful consequences already at the stage of experiments and experiments...<…>

The authors of the appeal, members of the Russian National Committee on Bioethics, believe that the absence of such a control mechanism in Russia leads to a violation of the Tokyo Declaration of the World Medical Association and the Principles medical ethics, approved in 1982 by the UN General Assembly.<…>».

"GAZ" became a joint-stock company"— page 2

“The largest production association “Gorky Automobile Plant” has ceased to be state enterprise- it is registered as Joint-Stock Company open type"GAS".<…>

There is a special Decree of the President of Russia “On the peculiarities of privatization production association“GAZ” is a document according to which the staff of the oldest enterprise is granted the right to some additional benefits. According to the privatization regulations, the collective receives at its disposal 25 percent of the so-called preferred shares - “non-voting”, and another 10 percent of preferential shares (with a 30 percent discount). As for the option - five percent of the shares that should go to the management team, a significant addition has been made here. At GAZ in such large divisions as the foundry metallurgical production, production of freight and passenger cars, tool farming and others, employ many thousands of workers; these are, in fact, “factories within a factory.” Therefore, the heads of these divisions are also given the right to buy back shares from the same 5 percent of the option...<…>».

"Man of 1992"— page 3

[Nugzar Betaneli, director of the Institute of Sociology of Parliamentarism]: “<…>Many still regret the collapse of the USSR: April - 63, August - 69, December - 67 percent. But time brings us closer to reality: the number of those who still consider themselves citizens of the USSR decreased from 17 percent in January to 8 percent on December 24. The number of those who “do not feel that we have any kind of state” has increased slightly (January - 5, March - 8, December - 9 percent). 1 percent of respondents consider themselves “citizens of the world.” The majority - January - 66, March - 61, December - 69 percent - feel themselves to be citizens of Russia.<…>

Who can be called “Man of 1992” in Russia or in the world? Many - 44 percent - found it difficult to answer this question, 18 - believe that “there is no one like that,” however, according to 38 percent of Muscovites, “Person of the Year” is: B. Yeltsin - 17 percent, E. Gaidar - 8 , A. Rutskoy - 3, B. Clinton - 2, 1.5 percent of “votes” were collected by G. Bush, M. Gorbachev, R. Khasbulatov, one each by N. Nazarbayev, N. Travkin, S. Fedorov, V Chernomyrdin, another 29 names were mentioned 1-3 times. But one of the Muscovites said what others may have been embarrassed to say: “The Person of the Year is myself, because I survived”...<…>».

“A clash between authorities amid the upcoming referendum”— page 3

“Strictly speaking, the VII Congress of People’s Deputies ended with an agreement that introduced in Russia state of emergency until April 11. Or semi-emergency: “democracy has been suspended” by the ban on referendums, which are part of the set of inviolable and irrevocable rights of a democratic society. The moment was truly a crisis, and the Chairman of the Constitutional Court took off his robe in order to separate the “first authorities” that were clinging to each other. Valery Dmitrievich Zorkin, without a doubt, became the “man of the year”, and at the same time established the authority of the “third power”. One could even call this action a civic feat. But the question still arises: to what extent does this action comply with the law?<…>

We were all spectators of a tragicomic television series called the VII Congress of People's Deputies. Before this, the 6th Congress took place exactly according to the same scenario. And you ask yourself: why can some violent parliamentary conflict in our country or a shocking speech from a speaker lead to the rejection of a really necessary bill, or even to a change of government? Why is it that “with them,” where there are even worse fights in parliaments, everything remains funny or outrageous, but only an episode? Obviously, because the separation of powers created a certain democratic mentality there: it brought up and instilled in the consciousness that there is neither a person nor a body in the state that can “decide everything.” Our consciousness accepts this for now. This is purely Soviet state education plus the legacy of autocratic Russia. And this must be taken into account when organizing the referendum on April 11, on which so many hopes are now pinned...<…>».

“Competition begins in the space communications market”— page 3

«<…>Nowadays, the improvement and organization of mass production of ground-based receiving and transmitting devices is in full swing. They are about a third the size of a familiar briefcase, and they are expected to cost no more than telefaxes. At the first stage, “Messenger” will provide its subscribers with communication in Email, telex, telefax, computer information exchange. Apparently, this will be the cheapest global space communication system. In the future it is planned to add a radiotelephone to it.<…>

Let us emphasize the main thing - not a penny is being taken from the budget for new projects. All work is financed by commercial structures. Naturally, not out of charity. World experience has shown that every dollar invested in space communications brings about seven dollars in profit. This is for developed countries. And for Russia? Yes, we still have no telephone service at all in more than one hundred thousand small settlements.<…>».

"Hostages"— page 3

Subtitle - " Agrarian reform pushed officials and farmers head-on”

Having “not “knocked out” loans for a year, quiet farmer Alexander Bezgodko chained himself to a heating radiator in the regional board of AKKOP and put a knife to his own stomach, threatening to commit suicide. And when the police expelled him from the office premises, the farmer went on a hunger strike. The chairman of Smolensk AKKOR, Vladimir Tsvetkov, hinted in the city newspaper, and then to your correspondent, that Bezgodko was supposedly not himself, and therefore there was no point in inflating a cheap sensation. AKKOR executive director Anatoly Volosenkov expressed himself even more categorically: if the hunger strike ends sadly, there will be one less fool.<…>

When you start to delve into the numbers and nuances, you involuntarily catch yourself asking tricky questions. So who is the madman? Who's the projector? Bezgodko (who, by the way, was examined by a psychiatrist and found quite sane) and others like him, who once again believed the authorities? Or the power itself, which in Smolensk is represented by an agrarian general and a KGB officer, pedaling the most complex socio-economic processes without any justification and producing not full-fledged owners, but beggars embittered by such reforms?

Paradoxical as it may seem, it seems to me that both officials and many farmers have found themselves equally hostage to yet another revolutionary idea. Only the former fell into this trap thanks to their own, sometimes ignorant ambitions, the desire to show off an inflated figure at all costs in front of the high Moscow authorities, while the latter have nowhere to retreat: behind many, the bridges were burned.<…>».

“French intelligence about the mood in the Russian army”— page 4

“The Russian armed forces, as in the past, are characterized by an “imperialist” spirit. Moscow's draft military doctrine, developed by its top army command, reflected past Soviet concepts. This project, in particular, says nothing about the disappearance of confrontation between East and West. Moreover, there has been no change in the Russian approach with regard to the global concept of security and the role of the military-industrial complex."

This assessment of the Russian army was given by the Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI) of France in its report published in the magazine “Came de Mars”...<…>.

According to the “diagnosis” of the UVR, the evolution of the Russian army is happening slowly, and for the most part its officers are “imperialistically inclined.” Moscow’s new doctrine, in his opinion, is designed to serve the interests of the military caste and the military-industrial complex. Because of this, the UVR concludes, such a doctrine cannot but cause concern among the Western powers.<…>».

“Bill Clinton is concerned about the situation in Russia”— page 4

«<…>In an interview with Time magazine, in the first interview after winning the November elections, Clinton in response to the question: “As you approach your inauguration, what is your greatest concern? What bad could happen?” he said, in particular: “The world we live in is very unstable. This - back side the miracle that brought the end cold war. When the world was bipolar, it gave the United States and the Soviet Union limited ability to contain what we are now seeing in Bosnia, for example. I am concerned about what is happening in Russia. I believe in highest degree It is predictable that there will be disruptions in the reform process.”<…>

It is also noteworthy that in his very brief assessment of events in the former Soviet Union, Clinton was almost unanimous with Brent Scowcroft, George W. Bush's national security adviser. Scowcroft, who appeared on an NBC program on Sunday, pointedly avoided answering the question of how durable Boris Yeltsin's power in Russia is. But he noted that Yeltsin is faced with “increasing difficulties, political and economic,” and that “incredible inflation is an extremely destabilizing factor.”<…>».

“Vouchers appeared in Japan, now they are waiting for perestroika...”— page 7

«<…>...Meanwhile, the current world is more unstable and more subject to shocks than the previous world, and the main “source” of new worries is one sixth of the land, previously called Soviet Union. So, if you carefully analyze the main accents contained in various speeches of leading Western politicians addressed to Japan, then a certain “geographical orientation” emerges in the wishes for Tokyo. This is not yet an ultimatum, but an unequivocal call not to shy away from the “game” in the former Soviet direction. Too much depends on the successful outcome of Russian reforms - Western capitals understand this very well and, in fact, explain this to the Japanese.<…>

And then two interesting facts: in a recent letter sent by the Japanese Prime Minister to the Russian President, which contained a proposal to resume inter-Ministry of Foreign Affairs consultations and move “towards each other”, there was not a word about the problem of territories; In the four interviews the Prime Minister has just recorded with Japanese television companies on the occasion of the approaching New Year, there is also nothing about the territories, but concern is expressed about the development of the situation in Russia, and the Russian “direction” is highlighted as one of the key ones in world politics next year. Accidents in Japan happen too rarely to happen twice in a short period of time - since the Japanese Prime Minister shifts the emphasis in his conversation with Russia and about Russia, it means that hopes for changes in course can be considered serious.<…>».

Today, 1992 is next and the first part will be dedicated to the country that, even on the eve of the New Year holidays, was called the Soviet Union and which was ended on a December night in 1991 in Belovezhskaya Pushcha. For some, this geopolitical catastrophe was a tragedy; for others, it was a cause for celebration. In the West, the gravediggers of the USSR received a standing ovation.

Yeltsin during a speech at a joint meeting of both houses of the US Congress, June 17, 1992 Alexander Sentsov and Alexander Chumichev ITAR-TASS:

Let's see what happened in 1992 in the ruins of a great country.

First Russia.
Along with the political building of the USSR, its entire economic system collapsed overnight. From the first days of January, the country plunged headlong into the “wild market”. By special decree of Yeltsin, the entire population was allowed to trade anywhere and anything without any permits.

Sale of alcoholic beverages by hand at the Yaroslavsky railway station in Moscow. 1992 Stanislav Shaklein, MIA "Russia Today":

Along with street trading, a system of “commercial” stores blossomed overnight, where they traded for foreign currency or at free prices in rubles, which increased tenfold in a matter of weeks.

A variety of goods on the counters of foreign exchange stores. Moscow, 1992. Sergey Titov MIA “Russia Today”:

The ruble exchange rate has been plummeting uncontrollably all year, turning all citizens’ savings into pennies. From now on, people trusted only Western currency. First of all, "bucks".

Muscovites exchange dollars for rubles in one of the local banks on Black Tuesday, September 22, 1992. Alexander Zelimanchenko AP Photo:

The most enterprising citizens went to purchase goods abroad. Tens of thousands of people learned the new profession of “shuttle workers.”

Minsk, 1992. A woman in a bologna jacket. Photo by RIA Novosti:

The first year of the “wild market” brought poverty and hunger to Russia. The government was forced to ask the West to provide “humanitarian aid” with food.

"Humanitarian aid" arrived in Smolensk. January 1992:

In addition to food problems, the country was rocked by shortages of other essential goods.

Queue at a gas station in Moscow, 1992:

For a quick transition from socialism to capitalism, the Russian government announced the start of “voucher privatization.” Its main ideologist, Chubais, promised that one voucher would be equal to the cost of two Volga cars.

Privatization. 1992 Alexey Boytsov. RIA News:

From the perestroika "cooperators" a young "business elite" of Russia was being formed before our eyes, from which Yeltsin's "oligarchs" would soon emerge.

Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the International Financial Association Menatep, 1992:

The government of Yeltsin's "young reformers" did not see the country's economic future without Western investment. In 1992 there were still a few of them, but some were very symbolic.

At the site of the future Coca-Cola plant on Novoorlovskaya Street in Novo-Peredelkino, 1992:

The heady “air of freedom” filled the country. Now everything is possible.

Moscow, trade on Pushkin Square, Daniel Biskup, 1992:

All forbidden fruits have become available.

Topless dancing in the cabaret of the Ukraine Hotel, Arnold H. Drapkin, 1992:

The powerful wind of change was felt in everything. Bright, flashy colors came into fashion, which were associated with complete freedom and relaxedness.

Models during a show program by fashion designer Vyacheslav Zaitsev, 1992. RIA News:

New stars were shining on the Russian stage.

The long-awaited “spiritual freedom” suddenly showed its wrong side and began to take on the ugliest forms.

Fans greet the Hitler lookalike at the Metal Corrosion concert (1992):

1992 marked the beginning of the gangster era of the 90s. The time has come for “brigades”, “groupings”, “shooters”, “showdowns”, “brothers”, “attacks” and “roofs”.

Detained bandits from the Uralmash group lie side by side before interrogation (1992):

The population began to arm itself. Yeltsin issued a decree allowing citizens to buy pneumatic and gas pistols, as well as gas canisters for self-defense.

In Russian politics, 1992 passed relatively peacefully, although gradually irreconcilable contradictions began to emerge between the deputy corps and Yeltsin’s presidential power.
Despite periodic binges, the latter was still quite capable.

Yeltsin plays tennis, March 1992:

IN Nizhny Novgorod The star of the young governor-reformer Nemtsov, who enjoyed the special patronage of Yeltsin, was rising.

During a meeting with the GAZ administration, 1992:

Moscow Mayor Gavriil Popov (right) and Prime Minister of the Moscow Government Yuri Luzhkov (center) before the swim in Serebryany Bor. Oleg Lastochkin, RIA Novosti, 1992:

In 1992, descendants of the Romanov dynasty visited Russia for the first time. St. Petersburg, 1992:

Now let's see what was happening in the life of the post-Soviet space, which was getting used to the new abbreviation "CIS". The divorce happened gradually, in 1992 there was even a common Olympic team.

March of the United Team at the opening ceremony of the XVI Winter Olympic Games in Albertville. February 8, 1992:

In Ukraine, as in the Russian Federation, the pro-Western political and economic course was led by old party apparatchiks, led by the former secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine L.M. Kravchuk. They seemed to get along well.
In 1992, Yeltsin harshly suppressed Crimea’s timid attempts to return to Russia and agreed with Kiev to divide the Black Sea Fleet “brotherly.”

On August 3, 1992, in Mukhalatka near Yalta, the presidents of the two countries, Boris Yeltsin and Leonid Kravchuk, signed an Agreement on a phased settlement of the Black Sea Fleet problem ITAR-TASS Alexander Sentsov:

The two hottest spots in the territory former USSR in 1992 Tajikistan and Transnistria became.

In the first, a civil war began.

Rally on Shahidon Square in Tajikistan. Ratushenko. RIA Novosti, 1992:

Protesters on Shahidon Square in Dushanbe, Ratushenko, RIA Novosti, 1992:

Russian troops are evacuating residents of Nurek. Tajikistan, Nurek, November 4, 1992. Khamelyanin Gennady. TASS photo chronicle:

In Transnistria, a long-simmering conflict has entered a hot phase.
On the night of March 1-2, 1992, a car with Dubossary policemen was shot from an ambush. March 2 detachment special purpose The Ministry of Internal Affairs of Moldova attacked the regiment of the Russian 14th Army, stationed near the village of Cocieri. On April 1, a Moldovan police unit accompanied by two BTR-70 armored personnel carriers entered Bendery. The police attempted to disarm the Transnistrian guards. On June 19, 1992, regular units of the Moldovan army and armored columns of the Ministry of Internal Affairs were sent to Bendery. Bloody battles began in Bendery. On June 20, Moldovan troops reached the Bendery bridge across the Dniester. The assault on the city executive committee, defended by the Pridnestrovians, began. Moldovan forces of the Ministry of Internal Affairs unsuccessfully attempted to storm the location of the 14th Army in the city of Bendery. An explosion occurred at the location of the Russian regiment, killing 26 soldiers. Meanwhile, volunteers from the 14th Army, many of whom had local families, went over to the Transnistrian side. They, together with the Cossacks, guardsmen and militias, broke into Bendery and drove the Moldavian troops out of most of the city.

Defenders of Bender. I. Zenin, RIA Novosti, 1992:

Conflict in Transnistria. In the city of Bendery. I. Zenin, RIA Novosti:

In the same 1992, the Transnistrian conflict was frozen through the mediation of Russia. On August 1, 1992, the disengagement of the armed forces of the conflicting parties was completed.

Russian President Boris Yeltsin and Moldovan President Mircea Snegur during the signing of an agreement on measures to resolve the conflict in Transnistria. Alexander Makarov:

The Karabakh conflict also continued.
Military operations in the Martakert region Nagorno-Karabakh. R. Margasaryan. RIA Novosti, 1992: