Sandbox
Two concepts of collapse of the USSR is comparison of the two interpretations:
1. Collapse of USSR had been planned and performed by the Soviet oprichniks, agents of KGB and CK KPSS with goal of prihvatization and legalization of the treasure they had stolen, plundered using the slavery and the state terror.
2. Collapse of USSR ocurred due to the low efficiency of the Soviet political system. The collapse was not expected by the top of the Soviet administration. The oprichniks and top communists did not planned it, did not expect it and did not try to approach it.
Historic context
The USSR had been crated at Moscovia as an update of the terroristic bands of bolsheviks. They destroyed the young Russian Republic and plundered the superior power in 1917.
Lenin and then Stalin hated the population of Moscovia and tried to kill so many compatriots as they could.
Of order of 50 millions were murdered at the genocide of farmers with so-called kolkhoses.
then, of order of 50 millions of moscovians were killed at the quarrel between Hitler and Stalin at part of the World War II.
Khruschev Nikita Sergeevich tried to kill the population of Moscovia with nuclear waste from the military industry; then he tried to destroy all the Human civilization, igniting the new world war with attack on the USA from Cuba with devices of class Kuskinamat (Tzarbomba). The crime accomplices of Khrischev either did not want to spend the rest of their lives in the special underground palaces, or did not have access to these palaces; so, they did not want to begin the new world war. For this reason, Khruschev had been dismissed.
The new generation of Soviet fascists did not share the suicidal ideas of Lenin-Stalin-Khruschev.
So, the Brezhnev administration planned to destroy the the USSR, to kill the most of its population, but remain the richest clan of the world, converting at least of part of Moscoiva to some kind of capitalism - in the form described in book Dunno on the Moon (Незнайка на Луне).
In order to destroy the USSR, the Brezhnev administration begun the Russian invasion into Afghanistan and series of nuclear catastrophes. An additional benefit from these actions was the narcotraffic (The coffins were used for cocaine smuggling) and the money laundering on the so-called Liquidation; a lot of stolen staff had been attributed to each catastrophe.
The destruction of the USSR had been finished with the special performance, so-called "putch" in 1991 August [1].
Here, the interpretation is presented in in short, sharp and therefore exaggerated form.
Such an interpretation follows from application of the Rule of Newspeak to Sovetism.
This concept is compared to more traditional, "in-standing" interpretation in the next section.
Main table
| Event | Interpretation 1: Planned Collapse | Interpretation 2: Emergent Collapse |
|---|---|---|
| 1985.08.10.Chazhma [2] |
Soviet submarine had been exploded by administration for hiding of traces of robbery and for the money laundering on the nuclear disaster. |
Likely caused by engineering errors, poor maintenance, and bureaucratic negligence; fits the pattern of systemic incompetence without assuming malicious intent. |
Warning
This article compares two simplified explanatory models of the Collapse of USSR.
The formulations in the column "Interpretation 1" are intentionally presented in a sharp and simplified form in order to make the logical structure of the hypothesis explicit. They should not be interpreted as established historical facts.
Similarly, the formulations in the column "Interpretation 2" summarize the more common interpretation in historical literature, which attributes the collapse of the USSR to systemic economic inefficiency, bureaucratic inertia and political instability.
The goal of the table is not to decide which interpretation is correct, but to compare how different hypotheses explain the same historical events.
Such comparison may help the reader evaluate:
- internal consistency of the interpretations,
- explanatory power of each concept,
- compatibility with the available sources.
This approach is related to methods described in articles TROI and TORI axioms, where competing concepts are evaluated by their consistency, simplicity and ability to explain observed events.
References