Perestroika, difficulties and contradictions.
Lecture 16
2. Strengthening the political struggle in society in the second half of the 80s - early 1990s. The collapse of the USSR and the emergence of the Commonwealth of Independent States.
1. Perestroika: its contradictory nature and consequences. The obvious increase in negative phenomena in the life of the country caused serious concern to its leadership. Yu. V. Andropov, who headed the party and the state after the death of L. Brezhnev, openly admitted the presence of many unresolved problems, the backwardness of the USSR from the West in a number of important areas. Decisive measures were taken to restore public order and discipline in production. Personnel reshuffles in party and state structures caused a wide resonance. Investigation of the most odious facts of corruption has begun. Much attention was paid to the fight against bureaucracy and mismanagement. Most of the people accepted the new course with approval. However, after the death of Y. Andropov in early 1984, Soviet society again plunged into stagnation - the post of General Secretary of the CPSU was taken by the elderly, seriously ill K.U. Chernenko.
In March 1985 MS Gorbachev became General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU. In April, at the plenum of the Central Committee, a new course was outlined - a course towards accelerating the country's socio-economic development, which provided not only an increase in economic growth rates, but also a qualitative transformation of society, "the renewal of socialism." The success of the acceleration was associated with a more active use of the achievements of the scientific and technological revolution, the decentralization of the management of the national economy, the expansion of the independence of enterprises, and the strengthening of production discipline. The focus was again on mechanical engineering, with the rise of which hopes were associated for the technical reconstruction of production. Along with the course towards acceleration, a course towards publicity was taken.
Behind the unusually innovative slogans - "acceleration", "glasnost" - was hiding a fairly traditional model of socialist modernization, based on the belief in the perfection of the foundations of socialism. The main problem was seen in the insufficient use of the "potential opportunities of socialism." The task was to "create more socialism", to accelerate its development.
The accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant in April 1986 showed the difficult state of the Soviet economy and the impossibility of speeding up without fundamental changes, without perestroika.
In 1987, a new slogan was put forward: "perestroika". At the same time, acceleration remained the goal, and perestroika was seen as a means to achieve it. At the initial stage, perestroika meant only a radical economic reform; later, the reform of the political system and the renewal of ideology entered the concept of perestroika. At the same time, the economic reform, in fact, was reduced to the transition from administrative to economic levers of management. The cooperative movement has been widely developed. Some ministries and departments were abolished, and the independence of enterprises was expanded. In 1987, a law on the state enterprise was adopted, according to which the prerogatives were redistributed between ministries and enterprises. The role of the central planning bodies was reduced to the preparation of control figures for economic development and the determination of the state order, the share of which was supposed to be gradually reduced. Products produced by enterprises in excess of the state order could be freely sold by the enterprise. Enterprises gained independence in determining the number of employees, setting wages, and choosing economic partners. The labor collectives were given the right to choose the administration.
However, the law failed. In the absence of infrastructure, most leaders preferred not to take risks, but to receive the maximum state order, which served as a guarantee of a centralized supply of raw materials and marketing of finished products.
Socialist stereotypes in the public mind also hindered the establishment of market relations. Article 23, which provided for the possibility and conditions of bankruptcy, was not put into effect: the lobbying efforts of the party and economic bodies, ministries, the activity of trade unions and labor collectives left even the most hopeless enterprises afloat. The right to lay off workers did nothing either: the prospect of unemployment was strongly condemned by both labor collectives and society as a whole. Public opinion did not accept the prospect of higher prices as a consequence of the economic freedom of enterprises.
The perestroika policy had significant social and economic costs. Crisis phenomena in the economy continued to worsen. Production dropped sharply. The shortage of foodstuffs and consumer goods increased, and the budget deficit increased. In the context of a shortage of almost all types of goods, prices began to rise. The incomes of the majority of the population have decreased. Under the conditions of glasnost, social protest found expression in the strike movement that began in the summer of 1989. At mass rallies, posters flashed with inscriptions such as: “Thank you, Prime Minister Ryzhkov, that I am without bread and pants.” Noting the collapse of the economy, Prime Minister N.I. Ryzhkov resigned.
In the late 1980s, most party and economic leaders recognized the need for a broad development of market relations. The First Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR decided to begin the transition to a new model of economic development. This model assumed a combination of planned and market principles and was enshrined in the resolution of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR "On the concept of transition to a regulated market economy." The regulated market program has been criticized by a number of scholars. S. Shatalin and G. Yavlinsky proposed an alternative program for overcoming the crisis, which provided for the deprivation of the union government of monopoly economic power and the privatization of the economy. But this program was rejected.
Changes in social and political life began with the policy of glasnost. The easing of censorship led to the emergence of a number of new publications. In 1985-1986 the fight against corruption and violations of industrial discipline. A commission was set up to further study documents and materials on the repressions of the 1930s. Many victims of Stalinist repressions were rehabilitated, including N. Bukharin, agricultural scientists A. Chayanov and N. Kondratiev.
In the late 1980s, transformations also affected the structure of state power. The 19th party conference in the summer of 1988 supported M. Gorbachev's proposal to restructure the political system of society. The political reform provided for the separation of powers, the development of parliamentarism and the building of civil society . A new body of power was created - the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR. From among its participants, the Supreme Soviet of the USSR was elected, which turned into a permanent parliament. Similar structures were created in the Union republics. The post of President of the USSR was established. In 1990, M.S. Gorbachev became one.
The new electoral law introduced the practice of holding alternative elections. In 1990, the 6th article of the Constitution of the USSR was canceled, which consolidated the monopoly of the CPSU on power. The state has become more liberal towards the church. Theological educational institutions were opened, new religious communities were registered. Religious buildings were returned to believers, the construction of new ones was allowed. Spiritual figures began to take part in the public life of the country.
The "new political thinking" in foreign policy provided for the priority of universal human values over class ones.
2. Strengthening of the political struggle in society in the second half of the 80s - in the first half of the 1990s. The collapse of the USSR and the emergence of the Commonwealth of Independent States. In the mid-80s, the USSR included 15 union republics, in which representatives of more than a hundred nations and nationalities lived. It was officially announced the creation of a new national community - the "Soviet people", the achievement of the actual equality of the republics in terms of political, economic and cultural development. The national question was considered completely resolved. However, in fact, in the field of interethnic relations there were serious problems and contradictions caused by the thoughtlessness and inconsistency of national policy, diktat and insufficient attention of the central authorities to the needs of the republics.
Democratic processes led to the creation of popular fronts in the union republics, new political parties and movements ("Rukh" in Ukraine, "Sajudis" in Lithuania). In 1986 there were mass demonstrations against Russification in Alma-Ata. In the Baltic republics, in Ukraine and in Belarus, the public persistently demanded the publication of the Soviet-German treaties of 1939, documents on the deportation of the population during the period of collectivization, etc. The rise of the nationalist movement in the conditions of a deepening economic crisis took advantage of the radicals and separatists, who unleashed bloody clashes. Dozens of people died in Sumgayit and Fergana, thousands of people became refugees in Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan and Armenia. Ethnic intolerance began to manifest itself more and more.
In 1988, the opposition forces of the Baltic republics headed for secession from the USSR. At the same time, an Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict began in Transcaucasia over the ownership of Nagorno-Karabakh, which took the form of a protracted and bloody war. The Union State turned out to be helpless in resolving this and many other interethnic and interethnic conflicts. Unable to retain power democratically, the leadership of the USSR was forced to use military force.
1990 was marked by a "parade of sovereignties". First, the Baltic republics, and then other republics of the USSR, including Russia, adopted declarations of state sovereignty, thereby actually opposing themselves to the union state. In the context of strengthening centrifugal forces, the IV Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR in December 1990 decided to preserve the USSR and transform it into a democratic federal state. In accordance with the decision of the congress in March 1991, a referendum was held on the fate of the USSR. 76.4% of the voting participants were in favor of preserving the USSR. The signing of a new union treaty, which provided for the granting of broader powers to the republics and approved by the majority (10 out of 15) of the union republics, was scheduled for August 20, 1991.
The discussion of the draft of a new union treaty exacerbated the split in society. Some part of society regarded the project as the result of the capitulation of the center to the demands of the national-separatist forces in the republics. The conservative opposition forces made an attempt to stop the collapse of the state and keep power in the hands of the union center. On August 19, 1991, the State Committee for the State of Emergency (GKChP) was established, which declared it its task to overcome the economic and political crisis, interethnic and civil confrontation, and restore order. USSR President M. Gorbachev was temporarily (supposedly for health reasons) removed from power. The activities of opposition parties and the media were banned. Troops were brought into Moscow, and a state of emergency was introduced in a number of regions.
As early as August 19, free radio stations announced the events in Moscow as a putsch. The opposition to the GKChP was led by Russian President Boris Yeltsin. He regarded the actions of the State Emergency Committee as an unconstitutional coup and called for support for the legally elected authorities. Hundreds of thousands of people in Moscow and other cities took to the streets to protest against the GKChP. Some military units have gone over to the side of the opposition.
On August 21, the GKChP was practically deprived of power; on August 22, its members were arrested. Power in Moscow finally passed from the allied bodies to the Russian leadership. By decree of B. Yeltsin, the activities of the CPSU were terminated on the territory of Russia. The collapse of the USSR entered the final phase. Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and Ukraine declared their withdrawal from the USSR.
In December 1991, a meeting of the leaders of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia was held in Belovezhskaya Pushcha. On December 8, they announced the dissolution of the USSR and the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States. They were joined by 8 republics of the former USSR.
On December 25, 1991, the President of the USSR resigned. On the evening of December 25, 1991, a solemn change of flags took place over the Kremlin. For the first time since 1918, the red Soviet flag was lowered over the fortress and instead the white-blue-red flag of Russia was raised. This symbolic ceremony meant that the Soviet Union ceased to exist.
Perestroika, begun on the initiative of some party and state leaders with the aim of democratizing the life of society and improving socialism, has ended. Its main result was the collapse of the once mighty multinational state and the end of the Soviet period in the history of the Fatherland.
They can go so fast that it seems as if nothing is permanent in the world. Friends appear and disappear. The property exists today, but not tomorrow. The house where we spent our childhood is being demolished in order to build an office building in its place. The baby turns into an adult. People come together and part. People die.
At some point in our lives, we may decide that we have a "heartbreak". This could be due to the loss of a loved one, the deterioration of physical or mental health, the loss of a job that provides us with the necessary income.
Some cherished goals that we have set for ourselves may remain unfulfilled.
And if you look at the universe from a different point of view, you can see that everything lives and grows. Everything is in joyful motion. There are new combinations. A new beauty touches our soul. New opportunities are emerging. Adventures are waiting to happen with us!
When turbulent waves of change reach our lives (and they say that change is the only thing in life that is permanent), then their effect can be painful if we are too attached to material things in our hearts or too convinced of the erroneous idea that permanence exists. . And without the ability to adapt to and accept change, it can hurt our hearts. How to endure the pain of losses that sooner or later affect everyone's life? If we are open to the presence of God in every life change, then we calmly stay on the crest of the wave of change.
When a seed is sown in the darkness of the earth, its outer shell must be destroyed in order for new life to come into the light. Jesus said:
“If a grain of wheat, falling into the ground, does not die, then one remains; but if he dies, he will bear much fruit” (John 12:24).
When our outer shell is painfully destroyed, when it seems to us that our heart is breaking, it is important to learn the lesson that Jesus wanted to teach us.
Whenever we lose something, we can gain something at the same time.
In this case, we can understand and appreciate that life offers us an inexplicable experience that cannot always be interpreted with the help of experience. This understanding becomes a precious gift in itself. It may seem to us that if we could only do everything “right,” then we would not experience pain. But life is often much more complicated and mysterious.
A gift can be received at the moment of loss. The very pain that we experience can be caused by the fact that the shell of our understanding, our wisdom, our maturity and compassion is destroyed, releasing its gift, the new life hidden in it. This awareness is not morphine, which can dull or turn off the pain we experience. Rather, it is a means of opening up to the mysteries of pain, what it can give us as well as what it can take away from us. Perhaps we would welcome the prospect of change more gladly if we remembered that the path of life always leads forward, towards progress.
And when you live and develop, then changes are inevitable.
Have you considered that saying “Now is not the time for change” is the same as saying “I don’t have time to accept the blessing right now”? It is very important to grow - physically, mentally and spiritually. When changes come in our lives, it shows that we must be ready to accept them - joyfully and with delight. Have faith in the abilities of your soul, realize that the fullness of divine love and wisdom can be present in you and serve as an inexhaustible source for you. By internally preparing for change, you can get used to the thought of it.
The next time you feel how the shell that covers your heart is being destroyed, feel it fully and deeply and take comfort in the fact that, while experiencing pain, you become more compassionate and wise, both in relation to your neighbors and in relation to yourself. Difficulties can be an expensive and useful gift. Difficulties can be milestones in your mental and spiritual growth. Find the strength to welcome change and rejoice in the opportunity to grow and develop spiritually.
From Pythagoras, the ancient Greek philosopher, we learn that "the man who cannot command himself is not free." Through life experiences, often acquired during times of change, we can master our emotions, our mind and body, our thoughts and feelings - and through this become more useful people.
In the time allotted to us, we must live and work in such a way that what we get as a seed passes to the next generation as a flower, and what we get as a flower passes to them as a fruit. That's what we understand by progress code.
Henry Ward Beecher
By limiting one's occupations to one narrow area, without taking advantage of change or distraction, a person can come to such an emptiness that sometimes mortifies the imagination.
Edward J. St
Awareness of the need for change is the first step to successful changeElena Skriptunova,
Aksima: Consulting, Research, Training
www.site
Imagine a company that does not introduce any innovations. All business processes are set up, the business works like clockwork, bringing sufficient dividends to shareholders, a stable income for staff and a product of the required quality and price for customers. Such an ideal organization, the dream of any manager, and employee too. But is it possible in real life? How many times have we observed that everything just “settled down”, acquired the desired look, began to bring pleasure from achieving the goals set. And suddenly - time! Something is happening. And the usual way of acting becomes impossible, and, if you like it or not, you have to change something. As a rule, you don't want to do this. On the contrary, I want to postpone the decision-making as far as possible in the hope that, what if it all the same somehow resolves, and it will be possible to continue to live as before. So it turns out that the introduction of innovations is most often a forced measure, when you really don’t want to, but you need to. Otherwise it will be worse. Well, since changes in our lives are inevitable, it is wiser not to hide our heads in the sand, but to try to manage them. It’s even better to plan and start them in advance, before life pushes you towards it. When there are no special prerequisites, and in general, nothing could be done.
How do you know when it's time?
A typical description of a revolutionary situation, when the tops cannot, and the bottoms do not want to live in the old way, in our case suggests that we missed all the weak signals, hints and signs. Or resting on our laurels, or enjoying stability and peace, or stubbornly pretending that we do not see anything and everything is fine.
The advantage of picking up weak signals about the need for upcoming changes is that there is time to think, to calculate different options, to discuss possible scenarios. In general, approach the matter with feeling, with sense, with arrangement. If life has already given a kick and accelerated, then there is no more time to think, you need to run as fast as you can to rectify the situation. That is why it is always worthwhile to carefully observe what is happening and note those events and phenomena that in the future may lead to inevitable changes.
What are these weak signals?
- "A Fly in Amber or Frozen Time". If more and more often you begin to experience a feeling of “déjà vu”, when, for example, participating in meetings or meetings, you know exactly what this or that person will say now, how others will react to it, and how it will all end. You know by heart both your questions and your own arguments, and you know that your opponents also know them, but, nevertheless, all participants in the process continue to play the roles once assigned to them or assumed. If you increasingly feel that time has stopped or looped, then this is one of the important symptoms of the need for change.
- "The magnificence of the swamp or nobody needs anything." When leaders are in no hurry to give instructions, and if they do, they “forget” to control. When subordinates do not try to take the initiative, but about the few assignments they quickly forget. When in general everyone is happy, and even ordinary troublemakers are tired of generating ideas, they almost resigned themselves to the fact that no one needs anything and come up with initiatives purely out of habit or inertia.
- "Look around, who do you see around or who are these people." If somehow it suddenly turns out that the number of those people whom you would like to see nearby is gradually and imperceptibly decreasing, and more and more “diverse and wrong” are observed nearby, and this seems to happen by itself, and there is a possibility that not far away the hour when there may not be a single ally around at all.
- "Everything rushes past or missed opportunities." How many times lately have you received proposals that do not fit into the usual order of things and require you to go beyond the boundaries of your usual ideas? And how many times have you, without looking, refused new opportunities, immediately forgetting those who turned to you with them? If in such situations you understand that you don’t want to start something new, since there are enough current worries, then this is another weak signal that changes will still happen, but without your desire.
- "Lost time or why all this?". If you suddenly realize that what you are doing is meaningless and you know for sure that you are wasting time on something, but you continue to do it, because otherwise you will have to explain it somehow, and possibly have trouble.
- "Accumulated fatigue or the same thing all the time." If it suddenly turns out that you have become annoyed by things that were previously perceived calmly. Or you realize that what you used to calmly endure, you can no longer endure, you are terribly tired of it. What used to be exciting is now boring.
- "All sorts of misfortunes." When literally everything goes awry, ranging from minor disasters, like a train that went out from under your nose, incomplete change, lost keys, running out of gas, a bruise from falling on ice, etc. within one day to more serious shocks.
- "Increase in incidence". Unconscious dissatisfaction can find a way out not only in emotional and behavioral characteristics. It can also show up physically. The body says “no” to such a life and, going into illness, forcibly changes the situation. The body needs a way out of a frustrating situation, and if this is not done consciously, then it happens at an unconscious level.
So, great. We realized that change is inevitable. And if we do not start them ourselves, then a little later life will force them to do it, but according to a tougher scenario. But what to do? Where to begin? What changes are needed in each specific case?
Well, if you have noted one or two weak signals of impending change. Then this is where you should start. If time has stopped, as in the first case, then the logical question is, why continue to do this. In this case, the changes will be aimed at adjusting the goals and possibly the ways to achieve them. If no one needs anything, as in the second case, then perhaps it's time to change the staff. If you understand that you are missing out on the opportunities that life gives you, as in the fourth case, then it is probably worth taking a closer look at them and perhaps setting priorities differently, giving up something that absorbs time.
But what if you see almost all of the above around you? What to do in this case? What to change?
The first two actions are universal for any situations when changes are ripe, but not yet fully realized, and the readiness to act has not yet been formed.
First, stop doing things that bring frustration. This does not mean that you need to give up on your goal just because you can’t achieve it every time. It just means that you need to act differently. But until it is clear exactly how to act differently, you need to stop trying and not waste your energy on something that still does not give a result.
Secondly, while there will be an awareness of the essence and specific mechanisms of change, all attention should be paid to openness to the new. Do not miss a single opportunity that will not slow down to appear. Feel like a vessel that is able to contain everything new and even completely renew its contents.
The next step is understanding the depth of the necessary changes. Change can be global or local. Before all the possibilities of local changes have been exhausted, global changes usually do not begin. Indeed, who would think of repurposing a business if it is obvious that the business processes used are far from perfect? However, there are situations when it's time to stop trying to improve the situation, and it's time to completely change it. In everyday life, we all have encountered such situations more than once. For example, at some point you need to stop painting, screwing, reinforcing something, but you just need to throw out all the rubbish, make a complete repair and buy new furniture.
What can change be?
Next, it is important to understand exactly what changes are needed. To do this, it makes sense to consider all possible options for change and answer the question: which of them are really needed. In most cases, the changes relate to 5 areas:
1) Goals.
The first question to always start thinking about change is – how relevant are our goals, do we still want to achieve them? Perhaps we have already achieved what we wanted and it's time to set new goals? Or, on the contrary, has the situation changed so much that it no longer makes sense to achieve goals once set? Or have new priorities emerged that require setting new goals?
By the mid-2000s, one large company began to realize that its approaches to providing a social package were outdated and needed to be revised. Since the beginning of the 1990s, this company has tried its best to retain qualified personnel. To this end, a variety of benefits were gradually introduced that provided social protection for employees. In fact, the company has assumed the functions of the state to support the socially unprotected segments of the population. Gradually, the state began to provide its citizens with more and more support, and the social package of the company in many respects began to duplicate the benefits provided by the state. Moreover, the goals of ensuring the survival of their workers were no longer there. Now the question of increasing labor productivity and business profitability is on the agenda. In such conditions, the company came to the conclusion that it is necessary to change the goals of providing a social package to employees from social protection to social motivation, eliminating duplication of state benefits, and providing a social package, including depending on the results of work. The change in goals led to the need to introduce new principles for providing a social package, which became a major innovation for the company.
So, the presence of actual goals allows us to answer the question “WHY are we doing something?” at any given time. Perhaps, for the sake of which we started something once, it is no longer relevant and it is time to set other goals? Perhaps the situation has changed or new factors have appeared that affect our goals?
2) Activities.
The second global opportunity for change is to change the very subject of activity. To honestly answer the question, is it time to do something else? Not in what we have been doing so far, but in what will allow us to better achieve our goals.
Let's continue the previous example. The company, realizing the need to change goals, went further. After analyzing the set of existing benefits for employees, she came to the conclusion that some of these benefits do not work to achieve new goals, moreover, they hinder their achievement. For example, the provision of various types of material assistance forms a dependent mood among the staff. People are accustomed to receiving a variety of additional payments that are in no way related to the results of their work, but are tied to the level of well-being of their family. And in order to increase it, you do not need to work more efficiently and productively, but it is enough to convincingly describe your troubles. Thus, it was decided to abandon most types of material assistance, either completely or replacing it with benefits aimed at developing such employee qualities that will help him show higher production results (healthy lifestyle, responsibility, stress tolerance).
So, the subject of activity directly depends on the goals. And the main question in this regard is: “WHAT will we do to achieve our goals?”
3) People
Sometimes changes are necessary because people who are involved in a process are so used to the existing situation that they are simply not able to change their view of it or the way they act. Sometimes it is enough just to introduce new people into the system for the process of change to be launched. New people are not weighed down by the experience of working in a particular organization, they do not know that it is impossible to do something according to the general opinion, and besides, they can start acting in a way that is unusual for the company. It is also important that new people restart the process of group dynamics. This means that the established roles in the team are shifting, and the process of winning a place under the sun begins anew. The threat of losing their won position wakes up even the sleepiest employees. And although their efforts are often unconstructive and not aimed at improving work at all, nevertheless, the very fact of a shake-up allows you to move the situation off the dead center.
The management of the company, realizing the need for change, announced a new course and a new policy for the company in relation to the client base. Several development guidelines were put forward, which boiled down mainly to the idea of a new look at customer focus. One of the postulates of the new policy was the thesis that the employees of the company interacting with each other should also treat each other as customers. The concept of an internal client was introduced. In all speeches, the management stated that it is necessary to respect customers and each other. The workers did not argue, believing that the management, of course, was right. That's just the usual corporate culture meant intrigue, gossip and a public showdown, sometimes in front of customers and partners. It never occurred to anyone that such behavior was contrary to the new policy. The management continued to pronounce the correct slogans from the podium, the employees gradually got used to them and could, on occasion, make the correct speech. In the practice of daily communication, nothing has changed. After some time, the leadership began to express concern that, despite the clearly formulated goals, the situation somehow does not change much and positive changes are not visible. Managers expected that middle management and ordinary employees themselves would be able to translate the set goals into concrete actions and change work behavior and general attitude. But it turned out that the main changes are required in the little things that no one notices for a long time and is used to them. The situation cleared up when a new person took the place of the resigned HR director. With a fresh look, he quickly assessed the cause of the problem and offered the management a rather radical solution: to change several of the most obvious violators of business ethics, taking in their place people with a completely different value system, a higher cultural level. The decision seemed adequate, especially since the candidates proposed for replacement had long caused various complaints of an emotional nature, however, with a sufficient level of professionalism, there were no particular complaints about their work. Despite the fact that the separation was fraught with conflicts and scandals, it still happened. The dismissed ones showed themselves in all their glory, which the new leader used to demonstrate to the entire team of examples of how not to behave if you share the declared principles of customer orientation. As a result, the replacement of only three people (in a team of 100 people) led to an understanding of what exactly the management was trying to convey to the staff for quite a long time.
So, it's always good to ask yourself, is it time to achieve our goals with other people? Who are they and what should they be? Who will we work with next?
4) Processes
If, in answering the previous questions, we realized that our goals are relevant, there is no need to change the subject of activity, and our team is able to cope with the planned, but at the same time the feeling of the need for change remains, then most likely it is necessary to take a closer look at ways to achieve the set goals. , to the procedures and algorithms used. To answer the question of whether process changes are required, we need to assess whether we are satisfied with the results obtained. Do we end up with what we expect?
If processes and procedures require changes, then such changes are not so global and their implementation does not lead to such radical transformations as in the first three cases. However, this does not mean that changing processes is simple and easy. An improperly organized work process can directly harm the achievement of goals.
The real estate agency drew attention to the fact that in the presence of a large number of applications, there are few transactions. That is, the ratio of the number of customers who applied to the number of customers who made a deal is low and continues to fall. With the help of consultants, the entire process of working with potential clients was analyzed. It turned out that the most annoying customers are the company's rules regarding information. Managers were required to collect cell phone numbers from all customers who applied and enter them into the ledger. Also, the provision of standard contracts to clients at their request was allowed only in exchange for the client's passport data. Also, the rules provided for a mandatory weekly phone call to all customers who applied. At the same time, the rules did not regulate in any way how to identify customer requests. When the results of the analysis were discussed with middle management, the proposed changes were strongly criticized under the slogan “We have always done this. It cannot be that such nonsense is the cause of our failures! But, despite the obvious misunderstanding on the part of the leaders, the changes were nevertheless launched and even approved by the rank and file staff (who actually had to listen to the customers' complaints about “stupid rules”). The new algorithm for working with customers who applied was as follows:
- description of available offers,
- tracking the reaction of a potential client and concretization of those proposals that aroused interest
- answers to all customer questions, including the provision of standard documents for processing a transaction
- providing the necessary contacts and an offer to contact if you have additional questions.
In such cases, when the goals, the activity itself and the team can be preserved, but the methods used need to be changed, the changes relate most often to business processes. That is, as a result of the changes, we will do something differently. And so the main question with such changes is: “HOW? How are we going to act?
The fifth direction of change is rather atypical and not often needed. Nevertheless, it is quite possible that we are doing everything right: the goal, the means, the people, and the activity itself do not require changes. And the feeling of the need for change is caused by the fact that the place of application of efforts was chosen inappropriately. And the place in the broad sense of the word. This may be the area of presence or coverage, geographic location, location among the immediate environment (what are the neighbors around), and even an organization / company. The history of recent years knows many cases when a team of professionals left one organization and either became part of another company (holding), or created something new, while continuing to do the same.
In one company, it has historically developed that the financial unit of the company dealt with motivation issues. Moreover, the financial director made decisions on the bonus system, and on the composition of the social package, and on bonuses, and on issues of moral motivation (thanks, competitions and awarding the winners). For more than 10 years, this situation suited everyone and no one thought that it was wrong and that all other companies are doing it differently. The appearance of weak signals of the need for change at first went unnoticed. At first, many managers (and, as it turned out, employees too) became irritated that their efforts to achieve the goals set by management remained without material reward. But the tasks were set by the head, reports were also submitted to the head, and the financial unit calculated bonuses without taking into account these tasks. Then a conflict suddenly broke out over a place in the competition. The offended employee assured that the criteria used are one-sided, take into account only money, but do not affect his contribution to business development. This incident gave rise to conversations in the team that gratitude in the company is given only to sellers, that is, to those who make a profit, and for some reason everyone else is ignored. The HR director has long been concerned that he is practically excluded from the company's motivation system. But earlier his attempts to draw the attention of management to this issue did not find a response. After the cases described, the manager himself started a conversation that perhaps the financial department is not the best place to implement the company's motivation system. Due to the professional mentality, financiers consider any issue only from the position of money. In general, this is justified, but in this case a broader and more systematic approach is needed. As a result, the change in the company was that the entire department that dealt with motivation as part of the financial department was transferred to the personnel service. The functions of the department have not changed much, but the new accountability has made it possible not to be limited only to the financial component of motivation.
So, it is quite possible that if you do something in another place, then everything will work out. In other words, WHERE is the place that will allow us to realize our plans?
Once the changes are realized, it's time to act. Of course, the process of change itself will differ significantly depending on the direction of the upcoming changes. But life without change is impossible, and the whole question is how to consider change - as an annoying hindrance in life, or vice versa, as something that makes life rich and interesting. And with some practice, preparing for the upcoming changes becomes an exciting detective story, when by observing yourself and your surroundings, you begin to understand the causes and consequences of events and their relationships. In other words, by becoming aware of the need for change, we take the first step towards effective change management.
To understand what is happening, we will answer several key questions in sequence.
Why is it necessary to destroy the Financial International.
Last year ended 40 years from the moment when the last world currency, the dollar, completely broke away from the real basis, and the world entered the era of a virtual monetary system. During this time, the world has become completely different. Today, the majority already hardly imagine that once everything could have been different. Meanwhile, the monetary system, based on real values, which were the equivalent of a materialized pile, existed until this moment for almost five thousand years.
The separation of money from the material basis turned it into a commodity, a monopoly on which a small group of private financial institutions began to possess. Over a 40-year period, using the possibility of the uncontrolled issue of money, this group actually took over the entire world economy. But the worst thing is that by monopolizing the economy of the planet, the Financial International has led both itself and the world to a dead end. Finintern no longer needs people and consumers, just as it does not need such a large-scale production. For him, this is a waste of non-renewable resources and a potential threat to his power as a result of social protests. So the ultimate goals of Fintern are easily visible. They can be summed up in just two sentences.
Reducing the world's population to a sufficient, in his opinion, level (500 million people).
The destruction of the entire technological civilization and a multiple lowering of the intellectual and educational level of the remaining population for an uncontested monopoly on knowledge and technology.
It was these goals that eventually made Finternn the main enemy and target for all other world Players, who still retain resources to fight him.
Firstly, its true owner is still the same Fintern.
Secondly, the volume of accumulated dollar debts made it impossible not only to increase them further, but even to simply refinance without transferring the process to a hyperinflationary stage, which is tantamount to the same collapse of the world financial system based on loan interest. In turn, the transition to hyperinflation will affect the world Players in different ways. The United States will suffer less than their creditors - Russia and China. Therefore, this option is unacceptable for the latter. One could say that this is an internal affair of Russia and China themselves. But neither the US nor Europe is able to survive in the conditions of a break in relations with the two main creditors of the planet. Their economies are not and will not be self-sufficient either financially or from a resource point of view for a long time to come. A way out of the impasse, albeit with losses for all parties, is possible only in the closest interaction and cooperation of the whole world.
Why Obama is playing against the dollar, but why he cannot choose the moment of default.
The attitude of Obama and those forces that have formed in the United States under his leadership to the collapse of their own currency looks paradoxical only at first glance. Today, a huge number of completely different representatives of the American elite and middle class have joined the ranks of the "patriots" of the United States and continue to arrive every day. These people are intelligent enough to see the coming end of the system created today. And they are also confident that the unexpected collapse of the United States will cause uncontrollable chaos in the country of such magnitude that there will simply be no one to streamline the situation. They also understand that the situation has gone so far that they are simply not able to cancel the collapse scenario. As a result, they have very little choice of options. Or completely reconcile, which for most of them means the elimination of any hope for the future. Or try to arrange the collapse of the system on your own and at the moment when all the consequences of this step will be carefully calculated, and the system of resistance to the coming chaos will be able to take it under control in a limited time, which will save the main infrastructure for subsequent recovery.
But in any case, Obama and his ilk cannot provoke a collapse on their own. First of all, because you cannot hide an awl in a bag, and an unenviable future awaits those responsible for the collapse inside the country. In any case, none of them will be able to take the helm in the process of eliminating the consequences of the collapse. Which in the end will lead everything to the same uncontrollable chaos.
Why China is playing against the Fintern, but cannot independently choose the moment of US default.
Relative to the US, China is in a much better position.
Yes, he will lose one and a half trillion dollars of debt and hardly less domestically in private dollar assets. In addition, it will lose its largest foreign market for Chinese goods. But with all this, only a more or less deep recession in the economy awaits him, but not chaos.
Another thing is that China, like any reasonable system, is trying to minimize these future losses. And it also means the need for a clear idea of the timing of the collapse.
Purely theoretically, China could well wait another 33 years with this, until the moment when Hong Kong passes into its full jurisdiction and all Western investments are under its control. But he understands that the system will not last that long.
Among other things, China has a fantastic memory for all the evil and good that the outside world has brought to it. He even remembers the betrayal of those who moved "under King Peas" to Japan. And he certainly remembers perfectly everything that the British Empire, which is still closely connected with Fintern, brought with it to China. He remembers and expects to get even. In fact, what everyone calls China's close connection to the Fintern is a gigantic trap that China lured the world's bankers into a few decades ago. Deng Xiaoping was a brilliant geopolitical civil defense player. But China is also well aware that in order to win completely, it needs an alliance with Russia and the United States, as the only two forces capable of taking away its victory by force. Albeit at the cost of mutual destruction in many respects. China does not want to pay this price.
But like the US, China cannot afford to initiate a collapse of the dollar system. A very significant part of the country's economy works for sales in the United States. And the collapse of the United States will inevitably cause problems and popular unrest in the country. And here there will be a very big difference between the fact that the collapse was initiated by the Chinese leadership itself (it will simply be swept away), and the fact that the crisis came from outside (it will help unite the nation).
Why Russia is playing against the Fintern, and why exactly it can choose the moment of US default.
I don’t think it’s worth explaining for a long time what size “tooth” Russia has for Britain and Fintern, starting from the time of “the Englishwoman shits”. And in the last couple of decades, this very force has repeatedly tried to contribute to the death of Russia as a single country. So there are more than enough reasons for the destruction of the Serpent in Russia.
But unlike the United States and China, Russia has the opportunity to "cause fire on itself" by becoming the initiator of the collapse of the global financial system.
Firstly, Russia has been preparing for this for a long time and today it has practically secured itself against the collapse of the dollar. We do not have "net" investments in the West (exceeding its investments in our country). We are able to immediately switch to settlements in rubles for foreign trade operations. We have enough assets here and there (including the assets of the Inheritors) that the system cannot stand.
Secondly, Russia has every chance to consolidate the nation, since the main victims of the collapse of the dollar will be its "fifth column", including those who still occupy official positions.
Thirdly, Russia is formally forced, but in fact planned to carry out the actual deprivatization of all strategic sectors of its economy.
Fourth, strange as it may sound to the "progressive public", but today Russia is in the military sense the only superpower capable of coping with any external enemy. And the fact that Serdyukov's amnesty was announced yesterday speaks for the fact that there is no point in hiding it anymore. The clown has adequately played his role, returned everything that he took out of order, and can rest.
The only thing that Russia needs to initiate the process is to agree on the timing and procedures with China and the United States so as not to let the process out of control in a military sense. Nobody needs the 3rd World War.
The 16th-17th centuries is an important milestone in the history of Russia, a milestone full of significant events with far-reaching consequences and the activities of persons of a large state scale.
Time of Troubles (1598-1613).
Background of Troubles. The upheavals of the era of Ivan IV were replaced by a period of undoubted, at least, political stabilization during the reign of Fyodor Ioannovich and, later, Boris Godunov at the end of the 16th century. However, the situation remained very difficult. The ruin of the country, caused by the oprichnina terror and long wars, exacerbated social problems. Particularly acute was the question of workers. The growth of the tax burden led to the mass exodus of peasants from the landlords' lands, which caused general dissatisfaction among the nobles and their appeals to the government demanding to stop the outflow of workers. Since such a decision was in the interests of the state itself, which was deprived of stable sources of tax revenues, it quite willingly went for such a measure as the introduction of "forbidden years", i.e. the period of the ban on the transition of peasants to St. George's Day. In 1597, the system of “reserved years” was supplemented by a decree on “lesson years”, which established a five-year period for the search and return of peasants who had gone into “reserved” years. These measures, apparently, were initially considered as purely temporary, with the aim of only surviving the difficulties that arose, but gradually they turned into permanent ones and, ultimately, formed the basis of the serfdom system. Thus, economic stabilization was achieved at a very high price for the enslavement of the bulk of the population, which could not but affect the subsequent development of the situation.
The shortage of workers also affected the relations between the leading social groups of Russian society - the boyars and the nobility. Competition for labor worsened their relationship. Conflicts also existed within the boyar environment itself.
The possibility of a new destabilization also lay in a noticeable weakening of the authority of the tsarist government, associated both with the inability to govern Fyodor Ivanovich, and the case of Tsarevich Dmitry, who died under unclear circumstances in 1591, and with the appearance of an elected sovereign in Russia for the first time in a very long period, which was a clear violation of the tradition of succession to the throne.
A change in the moral foundations in society, the so-called "confusion of minds" - a sharp change in moral and behavioral stereotypes, accompanied by an unprincipled and bloody struggle for power, a surge of violence, the movement of various sectors of society, foreign intervention, etc., which brought Russia to the brink of national disasters.
Thus, external calm in the country was only a cover for the complex and highly conflicting processes taking place within Russian society, fraught with a new aggravation of the socio-political situation. A relatively weak push was enough to bring the system out of balance.
The deepest crisis that engulfed all spheres of life in Russian society at the beginning of the 17th century. and resulted in a period of bloody conflicts, the struggle for national independence and national survival was called "Troubles" by contemporaries.
Events in the early 17th century in fact, they were a civil war, in which one part of society, quite heterogeneous in its social composition (service people "according to the fatherland" and "according to the instrument" of the southern and southwestern regions, townspeople, Cossacks, runaway serfs, peasants and even representatives of the boyars) , opposed another, no less socially diverse, inhabiting the central and northern counties. A significant part of the population, primarily the peasantry, acted as a passive mass, suffering from the actions of both groups.
One can speak of the Time of Troubles as a civilizational, structural crisis, where the tendencies of traditionalism and modernization collided. At the beginning of the XVII century. Russia began to move towards modernization and experienced a transitional period from a traditional to a modernized society.
Scientists have explained the causes and nature of these tragic events in different ways. N.M. Karamzin considered the tragic events of the early 17th century. as an accident caused by the indulgence of Tsar Fedor, the atrocities of Tsar Boris and the debauchery of the people. CM. Solovyov saw the main content of The Troubles in the clash between the asserted state principle and the anti-state, anti-social force, embodied primarily in the gangs of thieves' Cossacks. S.F. Platonov defined it as a reaction to endless ruin, when the problem of survival became especially acute.
In Soviet historical science, the concept of "Trouble" was rejected, and the events of the beginning of the 17th century. were characterized as "The first peasant war, having an anti-serfdom orientation, complicated by the internal political struggle of feudal groups for power and the Polish-Swedish intervention."
The explosion of the socio-political struggle at the beginning of the XVII century. was due to the combination of several extremely unfavorable political, social and other circumstances. Among the most important are the consequences of the famine, which dispossessed hundreds of thousands of people, combined with the recent dynastic crisis and sharp political contradictions in ruling circles. It is impossible not to take into account the indirect influence of the results of the oprichnina policy of Ivan IV, which caused unjustified ambitious aspirations of some and sharp discontent of other layers of service people. The political activity of the neighbors directed against Russia, especially the Polish-Lithuanian state and Sweden, also played a certain role. The Cossacks were also a destructive force, by the beginning of the 17th century. which was a poorly organized, but extremely active mass, often with purely criminal and anarchist motives.
Thus, the main reasons for the socio-political struggle in the country, which unfolded at the beginning of the 17th century. and called the Time of Troubles, were: further enslavement of the peasants by the landlords and the serf legislation of the government in the 80-90s of the 16th century; dynastic crisis in connection with the termination of the Rurik dynasty in 1598; the dissatisfaction of certain sections of the ruling classes with the previous policy of the government; aggravation of relations between the Cossacks and the government, which sought to curtail their rights and freedom. The development of the Time of Troubles was also influenced to a certain extent by the economic crisis in the country, which was a consequence of the oprichnina policy of Ivan IV and was not completely overcome by the beginning of the 17th century. Imposture was of great importance in the events of the Time of Troubles. The mysterious death of Tsarevich Dmitry contributed to the spread of rumors that the Tsarevich was actually alive.
Events of the Time of Troubles. At the beginning of 1598, the childless Fyodor died. The Zemsky Sobor elected Boris Godunov (1598–1605) as king. He refused for a long time, but under the threat of excommunication, he agreed to ascend the throne, while promising to take care of his subjects, improve their living conditions, and not resort to executions. For the first time in the country, not a “natural”, but an elected king entered the throne, which was to become the basis of the authority of his power. Boris Godunov, who has established himself as a talented statesman, conceived a number of reforms designed to ensure the development of the country. Under him, there was also a rapprochement between Russia and the West. Foreigners were invited to serve, Russian young nobles went to study abroad.
The successful beginning of the reign of B. Godunov was interrupted by a natural disaster at the beginning of the 17th century. In 1601 and 1602 because of the rains and early frosts on the vine, the harvest was lost, which led to a terrible famine. The authorities have taken active measures to overcome the crisis. Temporarily, "Yuri's day" was restored for some categories of peasants; free distributions of bread from the royal barns were held. But these measures did not improve the situation.
Among the people who perceived disasters as God's punishment for sins, rumors spread more and more about the sinfulness of Boris (he was charged with a terrible crime - infanticide in 1591) and his reign (it is not from God, but from the people who elected him at the Zemsky Sobor). Hunger and disappointment in the reign of Boris Godunov led to the first public demonstrations and the expectation of a savior. In 1603, the tsarist governors managed to suppress the movement of military serfs who robbed food carts near Moscow, but the authorities could not prevent the spread of rumors about the miraculous rescue of Tsarevich Dmitry.
The first period of Troubles. The identity of the man who fled from Russia to Poland in 1602 and posed as Tsarevich Dmitry remains a mystery to this day. According to the official version, he was a fugitive defrocked monk Grigory Otrepyev. He came from an impoverished noble family, was the serf of Fyodor Nikitich Romanov, the cousin of Tsar Fyodor Ivanovich (on the maternal side). After the massacre of Boris Godunov over the Romanov family, falsely accused of conspiracy, Otrepyev managed to escape, took the veil as a monk, and even got a job as the personal secretary of Patriarch Job. This testifies to the talent and abilities of the future impostor. It is possible that the Romanovs, who knew the life of the royal court and the details of the tragedy in Uglich, prepared him for this role. It is also indicative that, having come to power, False Dmitry I thanked his old master, forcibly tonsured a monk under the name Filaret, by appointing him Metropolitan of Rostov. Once in the Commonwealth and knowing well what was going on in his homeland, Grigory Otrepiev in 1603 decided to reveal his "secret". He declared himself the youngest son of Ivan IV and, promising territorial concessions and monetary rewards, managed to enlist the support of the Polish gentry. In addition, he became engaged to the daughter of the governor of Sandomierz, Marina Mnishek, and, according to some sources, converted to Catholicism.
In October 1604, with a small detachment (4 thousand people, of which 1 thousand were Poles), False Dmitry crossed the Russian border near Chernigov and ended up on the southwestern outskirts, where serfs, fugitive peasants flocked, where small servicemen and Cossacks were seething. In January 1605, near Dobrynich, the tsarist troops inflicted a crushing defeat on the troops of the impostor. The Poles left him, and he himself was about to flee to Poland, but the mood of the people played a role here.
Considering the impostor the legitimate heir to the throne, and therefore their savior, the population of the southwestern outskirts forced him to continue the struggle. It is indisputable that the lower classes of society hoped to receive rewards from him, and service people, the Cossacks - benefits and privileges. Given these sentiments, which penetrated into the central regions and into the troops, the tsarist governors hesitated, and after the unexpected death of Boris Godunov in April 1605, some of them went over to the side of False Dmitry.
In Moscow, Boris' heir, the 16-year-old Fyodor, educated and well prepared to fulfill his royal duties, was overthrown and killed. And after Maria Nagaya "recognized" her "son", which finally convinced Muscovites of the authenticity of the tsar, False Dmitry entered the capital and on June 30, 1605 was married to the kingdom.
The support of the people, it seemed, should have strengthened his position on the throne. However, the situation in the country turned out to be so difficult that, with all his abilities and good intentions, the new king could not unravel the tangle of contradictions. The clergy and boyars were alarmed by his simplicity and elements of "Westernism" in his views and behavior. As a result, the impostor did not find support in the political elite of Russian society. Many service people did not get what they expected. True, False Dmitry distributed land and money to the nobles of the south and exempted this territory from taxes for 10 years, but his "mercy" was a heavy burden on the population of the center and monasteries. In addition, in the spring of 1606, he announced a call for service and began to prepare for a campaign in the Crimea, which caused discontent among many servicemen. The growth of the Cossacks at the expense of people from different walks of life, his unwillingness to return to productive work, life at the expense of robberies and the desire to obtain the status of a privileged service class, forced False Dmitry to withdraw the Cossack detachments from Moscow, which weakened his position. The position of the lower classes of society did not improve: serfdom and heavy taxes remained. In addition, ordinary people were gradually repelled not only by the fluctuations in the policy of the "good king", but also by his personal behavior. With his eccentricity, violation of the traditional norms of behavior of the “earthly god” (for example, he did not perform the proper church rituals, easily communicated with people on the street), the “king” shocked the Muscovites. At the same time, by refusing to fulfill the promises given to the Polish king and the Catholic Church, the impostor lost the support of external forces.
All this predetermined the ease of the coup in May 1606. The reason for it was the wedding of False Dmitry with Marina Mnishek and the behavior of the Poles accompanying her. The boyars stimulated popular discontent, directing it to the tsar and his inner circle. As a result of the boyar conspiracy, False Dmitry was killed, and V.I. was proclaimed tsar at an impromptu Zemsky Sobor. Shuisky.
The second period of turmoil. During the accession of Shuisky (1606-1610), he had to give a "cross-kissing record", limiting the arbitrariness of royal power. He undertook not to execute without trial and not to take property from the relatives of the convicted.
Some scholars see in this act the first treaty between the king and his subjects, essentially signifying a step towards the rule of law, i.e. alternative to autocracy. But due to the circumstances, as well as the insignificance of the personality of the new king, his hypocrisy, it remained only a historical possibility, more theoretical than practical.
Despite all the efforts of Shuisky (for example, on his orders, the remains of Tsarevich Dmitry were transferred to the Archangel Cathedral, canonized, which turned the supporters of the impostor into heretics), rumors of a new miraculous rescue of Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich spread throughout the country. Shuisky's opponents gathered again in the south-west of the country.
In June 1606, in the city of Putivl, under the leadership of the governor, Prince. G. Shakhovsky and the former service serf I.I. Bolotnikov rebelled against the central government. Bolotnikov, who led the movement as "the great governor of Tsar Dmitry", was moving towards Moscow, destroying the boyars and governor along the way, which clearly manifested the increased hatred of the lower classes of society for its upper classes.
Having inflicted a number of defeats on Shuisky's troops, the army of the rebels, numbering up to one hundred thousand people, laid siege to Moscow in the autumn, which was also approached by detachments of Ryazan and Tula nobles, led by P. Lyapunov and I. Pashkov. At the decisive moment, the detachments of Lyapunov and Pashkov went over to the side of the government, which predetermined the defeat of the rebels. In this transition, both the unbridledness of the bulk of the rebels and the curses addressed to them by Patriarch Hermogenes played their role. At first, Bolotnikov retreated to Kaluga, and then to Tula, joining there with the Cossack detachments of another impostor - “Tsarevich Peter Fedorovich” (the Terek Cossack Ileika Muromets pretended to be the non-existent son of Tsar Fedor). After a long siege in September 1607, Tula was taken, and the leaders of the uprising, who surrendered to the mercy of the winner and believed his promises, were taken into custody and later executed.
The social composition of the movement was very contradictory and diverse. In practice, it almost did not differ from the composition of the forces that supported False Dmitry I: nobles, primarily from the south-west of the country, townspeople, serfs, Cossacks, peasants, whose participation, however, became more noticeable. Moreover, the landowning peasants of the central districts were also drawn into the movement.
At the same time, much less often in the army of Bolotnikov one could meet aristocrats: princes and boyars. The role of the Cossacks, who were the main military force of the movement, increased.
The Bolotnikov uprising continued the civil war in Russia. It revealed the contradictory character of the entire popular movement. Its main slogan, which sounded something like this: "Beat the boyars, take their lands, ranks, property and wives," in essence did not mean the overthrow of the existing social order, but the replacement of some holders of power and property by others. Bolotnikov distributed to his supporters the estates of Shuisky's close associates. True, to a certain extent, the participation of peasants in the movement at this stage gave it the features of a peasant war. But, entering the struggle, the peasants often lost touch with the land, hoped to change their social status and property status, become service people or Cossacks, and most importantly, they did not even think about changing the existing social order.
Third Period of Troubles. Intervention. Although the uprising was suppressed, the "Trouble" did not stop there, since the main contradictions were not resolved.
In the summer of 1607, False Dmitry II appeared in the south of the country. He was supported by detachments of the Polish gentry, fleeing from Sigismund III after the suppression of the anti-royal uprising, and the remnants of Bolotnikov's troops who joined. Approaching the capital, False Dmitry II fortified himself in the village. Tushino near Moscow (hence his nickname "Tushino thief"). Maria Mniszek also ended up in his camp, "recognizing" him as a saved husband. Some Moscow boyars and clerks went to the service of False Dmitry II. (Many of them changed the "king" several times, for which they received the nickname "flights").
Detachments of the Tushinos ravaged the country, robbed the population, which caused their hatred and spontaneous uprisings. In addition, in February 1609, Shuisky made an agreement with Sweden to fight them. The Swedish-Russian troops under the command of the tsar's nephew, Prince M.V. Skopin-Shuisky, inflicted a number of defeats on the Tushins, but the intervention of Sweden served as an excuse for the Polish king Sigismund III to switch to open intervention. In addition, the maintenance of the Swedish detachments entailed an increase in the tax burden, which increased dissatisfaction with Shuisky's rule.
Taking advantage of the fact that the central government in Russia was virtually absent, the army did not exist, in September 1609, Polish troops besieged Smolensk, which accelerated the split of the Tushino camp - by order of the king, the Poles who fought under the banner of "Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich" were to arrive at the Smolensk camp Sigismund. False Dmitry II fled to Kaluga, where in December 1610 he was killed by his bodyguard.
Sigismund III, continuing the siege of Smolensk, moved part of his troops under the leadership of Hetman Zolkiewski to Moscow. Near Mozhaisk near the village. Klushino in June 1610, the Poles inflicted a crushing defeat on the tsarist troops, which completely undermined the prestige of Shuisky and led to his overthrow. The boyar government headed by F.I. Mstislavsky, not having any real strength behind him, signed an agreement with Sigismund III on the erection of the Polish prince Vladislav to the Moscow throne. At the same time, the conditions of the “cross-kissing record” of V. Shuisky were confirmed and the preservation of Russian orders was guaranteed. Only the question of Vladislav's acceptance of Orthodoxy remained unresolved. In September 1610, Polish detachments led by the "viceroy of Tsar Vladislav" Gonsevsky entered Moscow.
The Swedish troops, released after the overthrow of V. Shuisky from treaty obligations, captured a significant part of the north of Russia.
So the struggle for political power led to social chaos, which, in the end, brought the country to the brink of a national catastrophe.
The catastrophic situation that developed towards the end of 1610 stirred up patriotic sentiments and religious feelings, forced many Russian people to rise above social contradictions, political differences and personal ambitions. The weariness of all sectors of society from the civil war, the thirst for order, which they perceived as the restoration of traditional foundations, also affected.
As a result, this predetermined the revival of tsarist power in its autocratic and Orthodox form, the rejection of all innovations aimed at transforming it, and the victory of conservative traditionalist forces. But only on this basis it was possible to rally society, get out of the crisis and achieve the expulsion of the occupiers.
In February 1611, the First Militia was formed from the detachments of V. Shuisky, False Dmitry II, nobles, Cossacks, service Tatars, which besieged Moscow with the aim of expelling the Poles. But due to internal disagreements, it fell apart. The Cossacks, outraged by the adopted "Sentence of the whole earth", according to which they did not receive the right to occupy managerial positions, hacked to death one of the leaders of the created Council of the whole earth, P. Lyapunov. In response, the noble detachments left the camp.
In addition, in June 1611, after almost two years of heroic defense organized by the boyar Shein, Smolensk fell. Sigismund III declared that not Vladislav, but he himself would become the king of Russia, which assumed its entry into the Commonwealth. There was a serious threat to the sovereignty of Russia. In July, the Swedes captured Novgorod and laid siege to Pskov.
The critical situation that had developed by the autumn of 1611 accelerated the creation of the Second Home Guard. Its initiator was the Nizhny Novgorod Zemstvo headman Kuzma Minin, and the military leader was Prince D.M. Pozharsky, who distinguished himself in the fight for Moscow during the First Militia.
The program put forward, providing for the liberation of the capital and the refusal to recognize a sovereign of foreign origin on the Russian throne, managed to rally representatives of all classes who were ready to make sacrifices for the sake of its implementation. The second militia created a new Council of the whole land, an administrative apparatus, and, well prepared, in August 1612 approached Moscow. He was supported by the Cossacks under the leadership of Prince Trubetskoy, who remained here after the collapse of the First Home Guard. Having beaten off an attempt by the Poles to help the besieged, on October 26, 1612, the militias liberated the capital.
End of Troubles. In February 1613, at the Zemsky Sobor, which was attended by representatives of almost all estates (except for serfs and landlord peasants), after long and heated discussions, Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov (1613–1645), the son of Metropolitan Philaret, was elected the new tsar. This choice was determined by the following factors:
The Romanovs to the greatest extent suited all classes, which made it possible to achieve reconciliation; family ties with the previous dynasty, the youthful age and moral character of 16-year-old Michael corresponded to popular ideas about the tsar-pastor, an intercessor before God, capable of atoning for the sins of the people.
The choice of the Zemsky Sobor turned out to be exceptionally successful. Mikhail Romanov met all the requirements. The election as tsar of a representative of the Russian boyar family, who was related through the female line with Ivan the Terrible, was then of great national importance. The representatives of the people at the Council rejected the nominations of foreigners, which meant the preservation of state sovereignty, national independence. The fifth attempt of Russian society to overcome the Time of Troubles was successful.
Thus, a new dynasty began in Russia - the Romanovs, who would rule in Russia for more than 300 years.
By 1615, the Cossack detachments, which with their robbery pushed away the bulk of the population, were defeated. One of the leaders of the Cossacks, Ivan Zarutsky, and the son of False Dmitry II, Ivan, nicknamed "Vorenok", were executed.
The government also managed to resolve foreign policy issues. In 1617, the Stolbovsky Peace was signed with Sweden, according to which the Novgorod lands returned to Russia, and she herself lost access to the Baltic Sea.
In 1618, after the defeat of the troops of Prince Vladislav, the Deulino truce was concluded. Russia lost Smolensk and the Seversk lands, but Russian prisoners returned to the country, including Filaret, who, after being elevated to the patriarchate, became the actual co-ruler of his son.
Results of the Troubles. Russia emerged from the Troubles extremely exhausted, with huge territorial and human losses. According to some reports, up to a third of the population died. Overcoming the economic ruin will be possible only by strengthening serfdom.
The international position of the country has sharply worsened. Russia found itself in political isolation, its military potential weakened, and for a long time its southern borders remained practically defenseless.
Anti-Western sentiments intensified in the country, which aggravated its cultural and, as a result, civilizational isolation.
The people managed to defend their independence, but as a result of their victory, autocracy and serfdom were revived in Russia. However, most likely, there was no other way to save and preserve Russian civilization in those extreme conditions.
The turmoil was the most difficult test for Russia: political and social destabilization, economic ruin, cultural decline - these are just some of the consequences of the civil war.
