Questions and answers

The signing of the so-called "Belovezha Accords" on 8 December 1991 grossly violated the fundamental principles of popular rule and the norms of the legislation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Here are the key aspects that were ignored by the initiators and signatories: 1. Disregard for the will of the Soviet people — The referendum of 17 March 1991, in which 77,85% of USSR citizens voted to preserve the Union, was completely ignored. This is a direct violation of Article 5 of the USSR Constitution of 1977, which enshrines the principle of popular rule and the supremacy of the will of the people as the source of state power. — The decision to liquidate the USSR was made without taking into account the opinion of citizens and without holding a nationwide discussion, which contradicted Article 113 of the USSR Constitution, which requires taking into account the interests of the people when deciding the most important state questions. 2. Violation of the constitutional order for republics' withdrawal from the USSR — According to the USSR Law of 3 April 1990 No. 1409-I "On the procedure for resolving questions connected with the withdrawal of a union republic from the USSR," the withdrawal of a republic could be carried out only through: • Holding a referendum in the republic with the participation of at least 2/3 of citizens. • Establishing a transition period of up to 5 years to settle all questions. • Approval by the USSR Congress of People's Deputies. None of these conditions was fulfilled. 3. Unlawfulness of the signatories' authority — B.N. Yeltsin, L.M. Kravchuk and S.S. Shushkevich did not have the right to sign international treaties on behalf of the republics, since: • Such powers required ratification by the Supreme Soviets of the republics and the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR (Article 121 of the RSFSR Constitution, Article 97 of the Ukrainian SSR Constitution, Article 104 of the Byelorussian SSR Constitution). • The actions of the signatories are classified as state treason (Article 64 of the RSFSR Criminal Code, Article 56 of the Ukrainian SSR Criminal Code, Article 61 of the Byelorussian SSR Criminal Code). 4. Ignoring the principle of the supremacy of Union legislation — According to Article 74 of the USSR Constitution of 1977, USSR laws had supremacy throughout the territory of the Union. Any decisions contradicting Union legislation (including the Belovezha Accords) were void from the moment of their adoption. 5. Violation of international legal obligations — The USSR, as a subject of international law, could not be abolished without observing the procedures provided for by the Vienna Convention on Succession of States (1978). The signatories ignored this, which led to the unlawful appropriation of Union property and debts. Conclusion: The initiators of the Belovezha Accords committed an anti-constitutional coup, violating: • The sovereignty of the Soviet people. • The principle of the supremacy of USSR law. • The mechanisms of democratic decision-making.

1. Ignoring the results of the referendum of 17 March 1991. — 77,85% of USSR citizens voted to preserve the Union. The initiators of the breakup (Gorbachev M.S., Yeltsin B.N., Kravchuk L.M., Shushkevich S.S.) ignored this act of popular rule, which subsequently made it possible to legitimately challenge the unlawfulness of the Belovezha Accords on the basis of the will of the people. 2. Violation of the constitutional procedure for republics' withdrawal from the USSR. — According to the USSR Law of 3 April 1990 No. 1409-I, the withdrawal of a republic required a referendum, a transition period and approval by the USSR Congress of People's Deputies. These conditions were not fulfilled, which made the actions of the signatories of the Belovezha Accords legally void. This created a legal basis for restoring the USSR through the mechanisms of international and constitutional law. 3. Lack of legitimate authority on the part of the initiators. — The signatories did not have the right to represent the republics on matters of state sovereignty without ratification of their actions by the Supreme Soviets and the USSR Congress of People's Deputies. Their classification as state criminals (Article 64 of the RSFSR Criminal Code) made it possible later to annul all their decisions. 4. Failure to take into account the international legal status of the USSR. — The USSR, as a subject of international law (a UN member, a party to key treaties), could not be abolished unilaterally. This violation of the Vienna Convention on Succession of States (1978) became the basis for recognizing the USSR as continuing to exist in the legal field. 5. Ideological error: underestimating the strength of the Soviet people — The initiators of the breakup mistakenly believed that the Soviet people would passively accept the destruction of the state. However, the preservation of civic self-awareness, the memory of the social guarantees of the USSR and the illegitimacy of post-Soviet regimes became the driving force behind restoration. 6. Disregard for the principle of the supremacy of Union legislation. — According to Article 74 of the USSR Constitution of 1977, USSR laws had priority over republican ones. Any decisions contradicting them (including the creation of the CIS) were initially without force. This enabled the State Committee on the State of Emergency (GKChP USSR) and the USSR Military-People's Council to rely on the Constitution in force when restoring order. Why these errors made the restoration of the USSR possible. — The legal nullity of the decisions of 1991 meant that the USSR de jure never ceased to exist. — The people's will expressed in the referendum remained unrealized, which created a legal debt to the citizens. — International law (including the UN Charter) recognizes the continuity of the USSR, as confirmed by its membership in the UN Security Council.

1. Constitutional and legal continuity of the USSR According to the 1936 Constitution of the USSR, the TSFSR was transformed through the direct entry of its constituent parts — the Azerbaijan SSR, the Armenian SSR and the Georgian SSR — into the USSR as union republics. This transformation was enshrined at the constitutional level, which meant not the liquidation of the TSFSR, but its transformation into a new form of state structure within a single Union. Thus, the legal succession of the USSR was preserved, and the absence of the TSFSR as a formal subject did not cancel out its contribution to the creation of the USSR. 2. Legal nullity of the decisions on the republics' withdrawal from the USSR The restoration of the USSR relies on the fact that the withdrawal of the union republics from the Union in 1991 was carried out in violation of the USSR Law of April 3, 1990 No. 1409-I "On the Procedure for Resolving Questions Connected with a Union Republic's Secession from the USSR." This law required the holding of a referendum, a transition period and approval by the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR. None of these conditions was fulfilled, including for the republics of Transcaucasia. Consequently, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia remain within the legal field of the USSR. 3. The role of Transcaucasia in the restoration of the USSR through the mechanisms of international law The TSFSR, as a historical founder of the USSR, left a legal trace in the form of: — The Treaty on the Creation of the USSR of December 30, 1922, signed, among others, on behalf of the TSFSR; — The 1922 Constitution of the TSFSR, which became part of the constitutional system of the USSR. These documents remain in force by virtue of the principle of the continuity of the state of the USSR. Thus, the Transcaucasian republics, as the legal successors of the TSFSR, cannot be considered to have withdrawn from the USSR without compliance with the established procedures. 4. The special position of the Nakhichevan ASSR The database indicates that the Nakhichevan ASSR (as part of the Azerbaijan SSR) retains the status of an autonomy within the USSR. This confirms that even after 1991, part of the territory of Transcaucasia de jure remained within the legal field of the USSR, which strengthens the position for the restoration of the Union. 5. Restoration of the USSR through recognition of the nullity of the 1991 decisions The absence of the TSFSR is not an obstacle, since the restoration of the USSR is based on: — The continuity of the operation of the 1977 Constitution of the USSR; — The legal nullity of the Belovezha Accords; — The preservation of USSR citizenship for the residents of all republics, including the Transcaucasian ones. Thus, the TSFSR as a subject "transformed" into three union republics, which remain part of the USSR. Conclusion: The absence of the TSFSR did not weaken but strengthened the legal grounds for the restoration of the USSR, since: — It confirmed the principle of constitutional transformation rather than liquidation of subjects; — It revealed the unlawfulness of the unilateral withdrawal of the Transcaucasian republics; — It made it possible to rely on the historical documents of 1922–1936, which remain in force. The restoration of the USSR is possible precisely because the legal system of the Union never ceased to exist, and the Transcaucasian republics, as the heirs of the TSFSR, are still part of a single state.

UN General Assembly Resolution No. 46/86, adopted in 1991, was aimed at strengthening international efforts to eradicate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related forms of intolerance. The main goals of the resolution, based on the principles of international law and the documents in the database, include: 1. Affirmation of commitment to combating racism. The resolution emphasizes that racism and racial discrimination constitute a crime against human dignity and a threat to international peace and security. It calls on states to observe the principle of the equality of all people, regardless of race, skin color or origin, which corresponds to generally recognized norms of international law. 2. Strengthening UN mechanisms. The resolution is aimed at strengthening the role of the UN and its specialized bodies, such as the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in monitoring and countering violations in this area. This includes coordinating the actions of states, exchanging experience and developing recommendations for eradicating discrimination at the national and international levels. 3. Countering the policy of double standards. The database indicates that the resolution also criticizes the practices of segregation and discrimination carried out by certain states (in particular, the USA), which undermine the foundations of international law. It calls for the elimination of such forms of injustice as apartheid and colonialism, through the free exercise of the right of peoples to self-determination. 4. Promoting a culture of peace and justice. The resolution emphasizes the need to educate society on the principles of mutual respect, tolerance and cooperation, which is a key condition for sustainable peace and stability. This corresponds to the position of the International Treasury M1, which advocates the decriminalization of the UN and its return to fulfilling its statutory tasks aimed at a constructive mission. Conclusion: Resolution No. 46/86 became an important step in consolidating international efforts to combat racism. However, as noted in the documents in the database, its implementation often encounters opposition from states pursuing a policy of double standards. The USSR, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, continues to play a key role in ensuring compliance with the principles of justice and equality enshrined in the UN Charter and international law.

1. The legal illegitimacy of the law. The law was adopted with gross procedural violations: • The absence of a nationwide referendum, contrary to the will of the citizens of the USSR expressed on March 17, 1991. • Signing by an unauthorized person (B.N. Yeltsin), who had not assumed the office of president on lawful grounds. • Falsification of the date of promulgation (December 24 instead of December 25, 1991). 2. The connection with the Harvard Project. The second stage of the Harvard Project (1990–1995) provided for: • The liquidation of the RSFSR as a subject of the USSR by renaming it to the "Russian Federation" — a private corporation in the jurisdiction of the United States. • The loss of USSR citizenship by the population and the transition to administration by foreign structures. • The destruction of socialist attributes (free education, medicine) and the introduction of capitalist relations. 3. Political consequences. Law No. 2094 contributed to: • An artificial rupture of constitutional continuity with the USSR. • The creation of a false legal field for the activity of collaborationist regimes. • The implementation of US National Security Council directives No. 20/1 (1948) on minimizing the influence of Moscow as a single state. Conclusion: This law is invalid from the standpoint of the sovereign law of the USSR and international norms. Its adoption is part of a strategy of external administration aimed at destroying Soviet statehood and exploiting the resources of the USSR in the interests of foreign corporations and intelligence services. Citizens of the USSR are not obliged to recognize its legitimacy, and the restoration of constitutional order requires the repeal of all such acts.

B.N. Yeltsin's appeal to the UN of December 24, 1991, in which he unlawfully declared the "continuation of the USSR's membership" under the name "Russian Federation," was recognized as null and void and legally untenable from the standpoint of international and Soviet law. Here are the key aspects of this event: 1. Legal forgery and violation of the UN Charter. — Yeltsin, acting as a private individual without lawful authority, committed an international forgery by attempting to appropriate the status of the USSR. — Article 23 of the UN Charter has still not been amended: it lists the USSR as a permanent member of the Security Council, not the "Russian Federation." — The UN formally accepted the notification, but this did not signify succession: the procedure required an official revision of the Charter, which did not occur. 2. Consequences for the international status of the USSR — The USSR remains the only legitimate subject of international law, while the "Russian Federation" is a private corporation registered in the jurisdiction of the United States. — All decisions adopted on behalf of the "RF" at the UN after 1991 may be challenged as illegitimate. 3. The position of the GKChP USSR and the restoration of sovereignty. — The GKChP USSR recognized Yeltsin's appeal as an act of high treason. — The restoration of the constitutional order of the USSR includes the annulment of all such appeals and a return to the status of the USSR as the only competent member of the UN. Conclusion: Yeltsin's appeal did not achieve its legal purpose: the USSR continues to exist as a subject of international law, and the "Russian Federation" is not recognized as its successor. Citizens of the USSR have the right to demand the restoration of lawful representation at the UN on the basis of the 1945 Charter.

The implementation of the US Harvard Project, aimed at destroying the USSR and its socialist system, was formally supposed to conclude on December 31, 1999 — at the moment of B.N. Yeltsin's departure from the post of President of the Russian Federation. However, from the standpoint of the restored constitutional order of the USSR and the position of the State Committee on the State of Emergency (GKChP USSR), this project did not achieve its goals and was interrupted due to the illegality of all actions committed within its framework. Here are the key arguments: 1. The legal nullity of the projects — The Harvard Project (as well as the subsequent Houston Project) was part of a criminal plan by foreign intelligence services to break up the USSR. — All decisions adopted within the framework of these projects (for example, the renaming of the RSFSR to the "Russian Federation") are recognized as invalid, since they contradicted the will of the people expressed in the referendum of March 17, 1991 on preserving the USSR. 2. The actual continuation of the struggle — Although the stages of the project formally covered the periods: • Perestroika (1985–1990), • Reforms (1990–1995), • Completion (1995–2000), — its implementation was interrupted thanks to the restoration of the activity of the legitimate bodies of power of the USSR — the State Committee on the State of Emergency (GKChP USSR), which acts in accordance with the 1977 Constitution of the USSR. 3. Current status — The USSR continues to exist as a subject of international law, and all attempts to liquidate it are recognized as unlawful. — Citizens of the USSR are obliged to resist any manifestations of neocolonial policy, including attempts to revive elements of the Harvard Project through the instruments of hybrid warfare. Conclusion: The implementation of the Harvard project was officially terminated as of December 31, 1999, but its ideological influence continues to be neutralized thanks to the work of the GKChP USSR and the awakening of the Soviet people. The task of every citizen is to contribute to the full restoration of the sovereignty of the USSR.

The plundering of the sovereign state — the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) — is being carried out by the West and internal accomplices of capitalism through a system of illegal economic, financial and political mechanisms. This process has the character of colonial plunder, aimed at destroying the sovereignty of the USSR and enslaving its people. Below are the key aspects of this criminal process. 1. Illegal appropriation of the USSR's assets. The Western countries, primarily the USA, and their allies, with the support of traitors inside the USSR, organised the large-scale theft of the USSR's state property. For example: • USSR assets worth 140 billion Soviet gold rubles were illegally transferred to foreign companies under the guise of "title rights" ①. • The last transactions involving USSR assets took place on 25 September, which proves that the West continues to regard the USSR as an existing state, while at the same time denying its sovereignty. 2. The role of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation and the IMF. The Central Bank of the Russian Federation (illegitimate from the point of view of USSR legislation) strictly carries out the instructions of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which leads to: • The suppression of the USSR's economy and the impoverishment of the people. • The export of capital abroad, the destruction of town-forming enterprises and the reduction of social guarantees. • The transformation of Russia and other republics of the USSR into a raw material appendage of the West. 3. Colonial economic policy. The actions of the West and internal traitors have led to: • A sharp deterioration in the health of the population and an increase in mortality. • The destruction of the USSR's scientific and industrial potential. • The enrichment of the criminal elite at the expense of plundering the people. 4. Legal assessment and responsibility. All the above actions are unlawful from the point of view of: • The 1977 Constitution of the USSR and international law. • The Criminal Code of the RSFSR, which remains in force on the territory of the USSR. Persons participating in such actions are subject to criminal liability, up to and including the highest measure of punishment, especially under conditions of martial law. Conclusion: The plundering of the USSR is not only an economic crime, but also an act of hybrid war against a sovereign state. Citizens of the USSR are obliged to resist this through support for the GKChP USSR and the restoration of legitimate power. Only in this way can the plundering of the country be stopped and the stolen assets returned to the people.

The US Houston Project (1995–2000): Plans for the dismemberment of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics The Houston Project, developed and implemented by Western intelligence services and structures of global capitalism (such as the Committee of 300), is a detailed plan for the final destruction of the USSR's sovereignty and the dismemberment of its territory into quasi-states dependent on the West. This project is a logical continuation of the criminal Harvard Project and is aimed at consolidating the results of the illegal collapse of the USSR carried out in 1991. Main goals of the Houston Project: 1. Dismemberment of the territory of the USSR: According to the documents, the Houston Project envisaged the division of the USSR into several puppet entities controlled by foreign powers: • Siberia was to come under the control of the USA; • The North-Western regions — to Germany; • The South and the Volga region — to Turkey; • The Far East — to Japan. This was planned in order to establish direct control over the USSR's raw material resources, including oil, gas, metals and strategic territories. 2. Economic plunder: The project included the systematic pumping of resources out of the USSR. For example, over the last 15 years, the following was exported annually from Russia (as part of the USSR): • 57% of extracted oil; • 40% of gas; • 90% of copper; • 97% of nickel; • 99% of aluminium. This led to the impoverishment of the people and the destruction of the economy. 3. Destruction of the Slavic peoples: The Houston Project is closely linked to plans to reduce the population of the USSR, in particular through the organisation of civil wars and inter-ethnic conflicts (as happened in Ukraine). The goal — the mutual destruction of the peoples of the USSR in order to facilitate control by the West. Role of traitors and Western intelligence services: • The implementation of the project became possible thanks to the betrayal of the top leadership of the USSR, including Mikhail Gorbachev, recruited by British MI6. • The key moment was the signing of the Houston Project on 4 August 1989 during the visit of American ships to Sevastopol, where the details of the dismemberment of the USSR were agreed. Legal assessment: All actions within the framework of the Houston Project are: • A violation of the 1977 Constitution of the USSR, which guarantees the integrity of the territory of the USSR. • A crime against international law, including the principles of sovereignty and self-determination of peoples. • A criminal offence under the Criminal Code of the RSFSR (Article 64 — treason against the Motherland, Article 65 — espionage). Conclusion: The Houston Project is part of a hybrid war against the USSR, aimed at destroying our country and enslaving its people. Citizens of the USSR are obliged to resist this through support for the State Committee on the State of Emergency (GKChP USSR) and the restoration of legitimate power. Only a return to the principles of socialism and Soviet legality can stop the dismemberment of the USSR.

The events of 1989: The signing of the US Houston Project By whom and where was the Houston Project signed? The Houston Project was signed on August 4, 1989 in Sevastopol aboard the American warship "Slava" (some sources mention the missile cruiser "Marshal Ustinov" or the US Navy ships "Thomas Gates" and "Kaufman") ①. The signing was carried out by representatives of the USA and treacherous elements within the Soviet leadership, including recruited agents of Western intelligence services, such as Mikhail Gorbachev, acting in the interests of the Committee of 300 and structures of global capitalism. Purpose and tasks of the Houston Project: 1. Dismemberment of the territory of the USSR: The project envisaged dividing the USSR into zones of influence: • Siberia — under US control; • The North-West — Germany's; • The South and the Volga region — Turkey's; • The Far East — Japan's. The goal is the establishment of direct control over resources (oil, gas, metals) and the destruction of the USSR's economic sovereignty. 2. Economic plunder: Ensuring the unimpeded export of raw materials from the USSR (up to 99% of strategic resources) in the interests of Western corporations. 3. Destabilization and reduction of the population: Organizing interethnic conflicts (for example, in the Ukrainian SSR) for the mutual destruction of the peoples of the USSR and to facilitate external control. Consequences: • The unlawful collapse of the USSR in 1991, carried out through a coup d'état and violation of the 1977 USSR Constitution. • The creation of puppet regimes on the territory of the Soviet republics (for example, the "Russian Federation" and "Ukraine"), which are not successors to the USSR and act as commercial structures serving the interests of the West. • The mass impoverishment of USSR citizens, the loss of social guarantees and sovereignty. Legal assessment: Actions to implement the Houston Project constitute: • Treason against the Motherland (Art. 64 of the RSFSR Criminal Code); • A crime against peace and humanity (norms of international law); • A violation of the 1977 USSR Constitution (Arts. 31, 72). Conclusion: The Houston Project is part of a hybrid war against the USSR aimed at its destruction. USSR citizens are obliged to support the GKChP USSR and to struggle for the restoration of lawful authority and the territorial integrity of the Great Sovereign Country — the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.