User talk:146.115.73.211

My response

I thank you for taking the time to reach out to me directly. Politics today and the history of politics remains a divisive issue in and of themselves so even if you write something from a neutral perspective, someone may interpret the work through their own innate biases. I tried to tread carefully on the Yeltsin article because of this. Americans specifically have a positive view of Yeltsin because they grew up during the anti-Communist sentiment and were taught that the Soviet Union was the pinnacle of evil. Yeltsin broke the union apart, who cares how he did it and who cares about the consequences, they thought. Few Americans expressed regret and concern about the world's future without a Soviet Union and have very positive opinions of the man at the epicenter of this, Boris Yeltsin. If you look at the article before I started, it hardly contained anything about the 1996 election and why he remains so controversial in Russia. The old Wikipedia entry was written with this pro-Yeltsin language, hardly mentioning the serious consequences his actions did, most visibly giving Vladimir Putin power. I did in-depth reading on Yeltsin's activities from 1991 onwards and this is what I found.

Sources point to visible phases that Yeltsin did go through his career from 1987 to his resignation in 1999. He started his career from the seeds Gorbachev had sown with Glasnost and Perestroika. Gorbachev's refusal to enforce hardline policies lead to the Soviet World War Two puppet states to secede and become independent. Gorbachev had to walk a fine line between maintaining public order and respecting liberties. Yeltsin capitalized on this. He knew Gorbachev was limited and he wasn't. His vision was first to dethrone Gorbachev as General Secretary but this was near impossible. Gorbachev and Yeltsin are the story of friends, turning into bitter political rivals. Yeltsin seized on the opportunity to paint himself as an alternative to the status quo Politburo and edge out Gorby. Because the USSR was in a recession and was vulnerable, Yeltsin secured the RSFSR presidency. Had the USSR been stable economically and politically, Yeltsin may have lost that election and the USSR could be with us today.

His whole political career started on being an anti-establishment populist. His image was an off the reserve commando. An analogy to this (I'm from the US so I'll use America as an example) is if the Governor of California which is the most populous and economically successful state challenged the United States President. These two figures would not battle in a courtroom instead the governor of a state was saying to the other US states to ignore the President and listen to him because he was more powerful. This action is clearly in violation of the US Constitution which asserts president > governor through the supremacy clause. The Soviet Union was the same case, a leader of a constituent was trying to sabotage the entire system. That is why I used the language of treason and treachery because Yeltsin swore an oath to the Constitution of the Soviet Union and by undermining the federal Soviet, he broke that oath. The same case would be made in the American system. If the governors of California, New York, and Texas signed a pact to leave the United States and go their separate waves, that would be seen as treasonous. The same thing happened in the USSR when Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus declared the USSR void. In our US scenario the governor would most likely run for the presidency in the next election and not blow up the United States, Yeltsin did have that option.

Those in the position to dethrone Gorbachev and give Yeltsin the reigns were concerned about his vague agenda, and his heavy use of alcohol. Because Yeltsin would never gain power legally, he did it by subverting the Constitution. Yeltsin swore an oath when he assumed the RSFSR presidency not just to Russia but to the USSR. I point out most importantly that the Dissolution of the USSR was not done democratically. The USSR held a referendum in February 1991, which was an open and fair referendum. Gorbachev refused to use military or secret police to sway the outcome. The Soviet people across all the nations voted to remain as a union. Who was the president of one state to undermine the free will of the Soviet people? The citizens of the RSFSR voted for Yeltsin because they thought he would bring reform, not implode their country. The collapse of the USSR was not done at the will of the Soviet citizenry it was done behind closed doors by a man who had no authority to do so.

The second phase of Yeltsin emerges when Soviet hardliners orchestrate a coup in August. This is when the ideas of dissolution begin festering in Yeltsin's head. The breaking of the USSR would not only make him look like a savior in the eyes of the west but it would ultimately reduce Gorbachev to a citizen. Yeltsin, like most politicians would hardly resist the chance to destroy their rival and all these factors played out. The dissolution of the USSR is incredibly complicated, even I cannot fathom how it was done the way it was done but if you remove Yeltsin from the equation the chances of a breakup lessen. He was not the only reason the USSR dissolved but he was the catalyst who much like Brutus did not attack first but it would be his stab that would be the most impactful.

The third phase for Yeltsin was 1991-1992 when he dismissed Gorbachev and Russia was no longer tied to a federal Soviet. His first years were very difficult. The economy was shot to hell, many were homeless and starved. Yeltsin, once a man of the people, an advocate for bringing western freedoms to Russia, became the thing he campaigned against, a despot. Yeltsin liked when people rebelled against Gorbachev but it hit different when they rebelled against him. There was little confidence in Yeltsin's ability to govern and the Russian Parliament who were democratically elected moved to dismiss Yeltsin. Instead of accepting his defeat and resigning for the sake of his country, he calls in the army. The Russian Army fired artillery at the parliament and shot those who sided in favor of Parliament. This was a constitutional crisis that was not resolved peacefully but with military force. The action of calling in the military to not just quell riots but openly murder people for their political beliefs is awfully alike to how Joseph Stalin resolved criticism. America never seemed to care about what Yeltsin did and in 1996 President Bill Clinton sent in advisors, strategists, and supplies to the Yeltsin campaign. Yeltsin played the cold war card, he was running against a communist and America did not want a communist to be in charge of Russia. After this election, Yeltsin began enjoying the fruits of the wealth that was once the Soviet Union's. He facilitated the growth of the oligarchs and in the very end facilitated the rise of Vladimir Putin in 1999. Putin is a whole separate case of issues but without Boris Yeltsin rolling out the red carpet for him, Putin may have never come to power.

I am not anti-Yeltsin but I am also not blinded by the fear of communism that I will accept that Yeltsin's actions as justified. I believe in democracy and representation. If the USSR citizenry voted in favor of keeping the Union but allow for reform then that should have been the outcome. Instead Yeltsin not only violated this brazenly but he opened the Presidency to Putin. Putin has eliminated political opposition by killing them and Russia is now even more backwards than when Lenin started. In the 1920s Lenin decriminalized homosexuality, in the 2020s Putin criminalized it as a constitutional amendment. In the end many are happy to say goodbye to the USSR because of Cold War bitterness but I maintain integrity to my principles. If the USSR remained and remained communist and had the support of the people then that's the end of discussion. I do not have an axe to grind with Yeltsin, he's dead so not a whole lot I can do. But I will call Yeltsin what he is, an opportunist. He undermined the Constitution but more importantly he undermined democracy and the will of the people 3 times. Once when dissolving the USSR, again by bombing the parliament and shooting critics, and a third time by cheating in a presidential election in 1996. That is why Yeltsin is controversial in Russia and why I feel the need to tell the whole story no matter how ugly or "unpatriotic" it is. Thank you again for reaching out to me, I hope I helped illuminate much needed light on this subject. History is a passion of mine and I see that it is yours as well. I wish you well in your endeavors and I wish you health and happiness in this chaotic year.

---