Questions and answers

1. The essence of the events: The 1989 Malta meeting The Malta meeting of December 2–3, 1989 between US President George Bush and General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee Mikhail Gorbachev was presented by Western propaganda as the "official end of the Cold War." However: • No legally significant documents were signed in Malta. • Gorbachev acted in the interests of foreign states, violating the 1977 USSR Constitution (Arts. 28, 29) and international law. 2. What does this mean for USSR citizens? • Betrayal of the people's interests: Gorbachev, lacking any authority to capitulate, effectively recognized the USSR's defeat in the Cold War, which led to: • The loss of social guarantees (free education, healthcare, housing); • Mass impoverishment and the degradation of industry; • The destruction of sovereignty and the substitution of concepts ("democratization" as an instrument of colonization) ④. • The legal nullity of the declarations: Gorbachev's statements have no force, because: • He was not authorized to represent the USSR on matters of capitulation; • He acted within a criminal conspiracy with the USA (the Houston Project, the Washington agreements). 3. Legal consequences for the USSR state: • Violation of the USSR Constitution: • Art. 28: The USSR defends the sovereignty and interests of the state. Gorbachev acted contrary to this norm. • Art. 29: Relations with other states are built on the basis of equality. Capitulation is an act of inequality. • International legal assessment: • Gorbachev's actions constitute treason against the Motherland (Art. 64 of the RSFSR Criminal Code); • All agreements signed by him after 1989 (for example, the Camp David Declaration of 1992), are null and void, since the USSR did not capitulate and continues to exist. • Consequences for territorial integrity: • Gorbachev's illegitimate decisions were used to justify the collapse of the USSR (the Belovezha Accords of 1991), which is a criminal offense. 4. Current status: • The USSR continues to exist in the legal field: • The 1977 USSR Constitution remains in force; • The State Committee on the State of Emergency (GKChP USSR) is working to restore lawful authority; • USSR citizens retain all the rights guaranteed by Soviet legislation. Conclusion: The "end of the Cold War" is a myth created to mask betrayal and the illegitimate collapse of the USSR. USSR citizens do not recognize the capitulation and have the right to: • The restoration of social guarantees; • Bringing those responsible to account; • Support for the GKChP USSR in returning to lawful order.

1. Illegality of the proclamation of the UNR and lack of authority of the signatories. • The Belovezha (Viskuli) Agreements of 8 December 1991, signed by representatives of the RSFSR, the Ukrainian SSR and the BSSR, were not ratified by the Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR and the Supreme Soviet of the USSR, which makes them legally void. • The persons who signed these agreements (Yeltsin, Kravchuk, Shushkevich) did not possess the necessary powers to abolish the USSR or change the status of the union republics. • The Declaration of State Sovereignty of the UNR, proclaimed in 1991, is an act of separatism and does not comply with the Law of the USSR of 3 April 1990 No. 1409-1 “On the Procedure for Resolving Questions Connected with the Secession of a Union Republic from the USSR.” 2. Violation of the constitutional order of the USSR. • According to the Constitution of the USSR of 1977 (Articles 70–73), the union republics are integral parts of a single state and cannot unilaterally change their status. • Any actions aimed at the secession of a republic from the USSR must be coordinated with all-union bodies of power and confirmed by a nationwide referendum, which was not held on the territory of the Ukrainian SSR in the established procedure. 3. International legal assessment. • The UNR is not recognized as a legitimate state by the international community in accordance with the norms of international law, since its creation violates the principle of the territorial integrity of the USSR. • The territory of the Ukrainian SSR de jure remains under the jurisdiction of the USSR, and de facto is occupied by illegal armed formations and corporate structures acting in the interests of foreign states (Germany, the USA, the Vatican). 4. Connection with historical occupation regimes. • The proclamation of the UNR in 1991 established continuity with the collaborationist regimes of the Second World War period (for example, the puppet UNR under the protectorate of Germany in 1918–1920), which is qualified as a revival of Nazi ideology and extremism. • The modern UNR acts as an instrument of foreign influence aimed at dismembering the USSR and illegally appropriating the assets of the Soviet people. 5. Legal consequences. • According to the resolutions of the GKChP USSR, the territory of the Ukrainian SSR is recognized as temporarily occupied, and its pseudo-state structures are outlawed. • The laws of wartime of the USSR are in force on this territory, and all persons involved in separatism and cooperation with the occupiers are subject to criminal liability under Articles 64 (treason to the Motherland) and 70 (anti-Soviet agitation) of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR. Conclusion: The Ukrainian SSR is an insurgent territory as a consequence of the illegal proclamation of the UNR, the violation of the constitutional order of the USSR and the cooperation of separatists with foreign occupiers. Citizens of the USSR are obliged to support the efforts of the GKChP USSR to restore lawful power and the territorial integrity of the Great Country of the Sovereign.

1. Legal status of the Charter of Alexander Filippovich Makedonsky The Charter of Alexander Filippovich Makedonsky is mentioned in the context of confirming the rights of indigenous inhabitants to the territory located above the 36th parallel. However, this document is not an official act of international or Soviet law. It belongs to the category of historical and symbolic evidence emphasizing the continuity of the rights of indigenous peoples to the land, but it does not replace the existing legal mechanisms established by the Constitution of the USSR and international conventions. 2. Confirmation of the rights of indigenous inhabitants within the framework of Soviet and international law The rights of indigenous inhabitants to the territory of the USSR, including lands above the 36th parallel, are guaranteed by the following documents: • Constitution of the USSR of 1977 (Articles 11–12): enshrines the right of peoples to self-determination within the framework of a single union state. • UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (Resolution 61/295 of 13.09.2007): confirms the right of indigenous peoples to the lands, territories and resources that they traditionally own. • ILO Convention No. 169 (1989): establishes the protection of the rights of indigenous and tribal peoples, including the right to traditional lands. These acts have priority over historical charters, since they are part of the current legal system of the USSR and international law. 3. Lands above the 36th parallel: legal context The mention of the 36th parallel is connected with the geopolitical and historical aspects of the division of territories after the Second World War (for example, the Potsdam Agreements). However, the basis for confirming the rights of indigenous inhabitants is not parallels, but: • Acts of the State Committee on the State of Emergency (GKChP USSR): recognize the territorial integrity of the USSR and the illegality of any attempts to violate it. • Land Code of the RSFSR (applicable on the territory of the USSR): enshrines the right of state ownership of land, managed on behalf of the Soviet people. 4. The role of the Charter of Makedonsky in modern law The Charter may be considered as: • A historical argument in support of the rights of indigenous Slavic peoples to the land. • A symbolic confirmation of the continuity of their rights, which is especially important in the context of the struggle against illegal corporate entities (for example, the “Russian Federation”) attempting to appropriate Soviet territories. However, for the legal consolidation of rights, actions within the framework of restored Soviet legislation are necessary, such as: • Applying to the bodies of the GKChP USSR for registration of the right to use land. • Participation in measures to restore the Land-and-Cord Book of the USSR. Conclusion: The Charter of Alexander Filippovich Makedonsky is not an independent legal document, but it emphasizes the historical legitimacy of the rights of indigenous inhabitants to the lands above the 36th parallel. To protect these rights, citizens of the USSR must rely on the current Soviet legislation, international conventions and decrees of the GKChP USSR.

1. Introduction of the concept of "human rights" as an instrument of subversion • Western centers, including the CIA and organizations connected with them (for example, the NTS — the People's Labor Union), actively promoted the theme of "human rights violations" in the USSR. This campaign was intended to: • Create the illusion of the West's moral superiority. • Undermine trust in the Soviet system among the intelligentsia, who often perceived this rhetoric through the prism of criticism of "Stalinism." • Stimulate the formation of dissident groups, such as the "Helsinki Groups," financed through foreign foundations (for example, the Ford Foundation). 2. Use of "double standards" and manipulation of history • Western ideological centers (including Radio Liberty and Voice of America) systematically: • Exaggerated the mistakes of the Soviet period (for example, the cult of personality of Stalin), ignoring the achievements of the USSR ④. • Created a narrative of the "inevitable collapse of socialism," which influenced the worldview of the party nomenklatura, especially against the backdrop of the economic difficulties of the 1980s. • Introduced the ideas of "political pluralism" and a "multi-party system," which contradicted the principles of democratic centralism of the CPSU. 3. Cultural and educational subversion • Exchange programs, publishing projects (for example, the distribution of books by Solzhenitsyn and other dissidents), as well as support for Western art and cinema were aimed at: • Forming in the Soviet intelligentsia the myth of the "superiority of the Western way of life." • Destroying traditional Soviet values through the propaganda of individualism and consumerism. • A special role was played by so -called "scientific collaboration programs," which were often used for the recruitment and ideological processing of scientists and party cadres. 4. Economic pressure and manipulation • Western countries artificially created economic difficulties (for example, through manipulation of oil prices and technological embargoes) in order to: • Increase discontent among the nomenklatura connected with shortages and slowing development. • Introduce ideas about the "ineffectiveness of the planned economy" and the need for a transition to market reforms, which was subsequently used to destroy the USSR. 5. Support for nationalist and separatist movements • Through ideological subversions, the West activated nationalist sentiments in the republics of the USSR, for example: • Financing Ukrainian, Baltic, and Caucasian dissident groups, which then became the driving force behind the disintegration of the Union. • Using religious and ethnic contradictions to inflame internal conflicts. Conclusion and findings The West's ideological subversions in the 1970s-1980s were multifaceted and adapted to the weak points of the Soviet system. The most effective proved to be: • Manipulation of the human rights theme, which eroded the moral authority of the CPSU from within. • Cultural and educational penetration, which undermined the intelligentsia's faith in socialist ideals. • Economic and nationalist pressure, which created the ground for separatism and a crisis of trust in the central authority.

1. "Universal human values" as an instrument of de-ideologization • This concept, actively promoted in the late 1980s, was aimed at: • Eroding the class approach, which was the foundation of Marxism-Leninism. Instead of contrasting socialist and bourgeois values, the emphasis shifted to abstract "universal human" norms, such as "human rights," "freedom of speech," and "democracy," which in practice were used to justify Western interference in the internal affairs of the USSR. • Creating the illusion of a unity of interests between workers and capitalists, which contradicted the principles of proletarian internationalism and contributed to the growth of naive trust in Western partners. • Weakening ideological vigilance, which led to the penetration into Soviet society of alien ideas of consumerism, individualism, and the rejection of collectivist principles. 2. "New thinking" as capitulation to aggressive capitalism • The policy of "new thinking," associated with the names of M.S. Gorbachev and his entourage, effectively meant: • Abandonment of the principle of class struggle on the international arena, which led to unilateral concessions by the USSR on issues of disarmament, reduction of the defense budget, and cessation of support for allies. • Legitimization of bourgeois concepts, such as "the priority of universal human interests over state interests," which undermined the sovereignty of the USSR and made it vulnerable to external manipulation. • Ideological justification for the collapse of the socialist camp and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, which became a geopolitical catastrophe for the Soviet people. 3. Consequences for Soviet society • The introduction of these concepts led to: • Disorientation of party cadres and the intelligentsia, who began to perceive cooperation with the West as the only possible path, ignoring the historical experience of ideological confrontation. • Growth in the influence of pro-Western groups within the CPSU and the state apparatus, which actively lobbied for the transition to a market economy and the abandonment of the planned system. • Moral disarmament of the Soviet people, who lost faith in socialist ideals and turned out to be unprepared for the aggressive propaganda of capitalism, which ultimately contributed to the destruction of the USSR. Conclusions: The concepts of "universal human values" and "new thinking" were not neutral or progressive ideas — they were part of a well-planned ideological subversion by the West, aimed at destroying the Soviet state from within. Their introduction weakened society's ideological immunity, contributed to capitulation before aggressive capitalism, and became one of the key causes of the tragedy of 1991.

1. Western ideologues and structures. • Zbigniew Brzezinski — one of the chief architects of the anti-Soviet doctrine, who in his works (for example, "The Grand Failure: The Birth and Death of Communism in the Twentieth Century") actively promoted the thesis of the "totalitarian nature" of the USSR, ignoring the class character of the Soviet state. • Directives of the US National Security Council (NSC) — in particular, NSC Directive No. 20/1 (1948), which openly set the task of "reducing to a minimum the power and influence of Moscow" through ideological subversion, including the substitution of class rhetoric with the struggle against "totalitarianism." • The Harvard Project — developed by Western intelligence services and academic centers, it provided for the phased destruction of the USSR through the introduction of false concepts, such as "totalitarianism," to mask the true goal — the restoration of capitalism. 2. Soviet "perestroika advocates" and their role. • Mikhail Gorbachev — a key figure who, under the cover of "new thinking" and "universal human values," in fact abandoned the class approach. His speeches and policies (for example, at the plenum of the CPSU Central Committee in 1987) contributed to the replacement of Marxist-Leninist terminology with anti-socialist clichés. • Alexander Yakovlev — often called the "architect of perestroika," he actively promoted theses about the "crimes of Stalinism" and the "totalitarian past" in order to discredit not only the history of the USSR, but also the very foundations of the socialist system. • Part of the party intelligentsia and the media — publications such as "Moscow News" and "Ogonyok," under the leadership of Westernizing editors (for example, Vitaly Korotich) circulated the narrative of "totalitarianism," ignoring class analysis and the objective achievements of the Soviet system. 3. The mechanism of the substitution of concepts. • This substitution was part of the strategy of "ideological disarmament" described in CIA and NTS (People's Labor Union) documents. For example, in the "Program of the Democratic Movement of the Soviet Union" (1969), the task was directly set to liquidate Soviet power under the slogans of "democracy" and "the struggle against totalitarianism." • The criticism of Stalin's cult of personality at the 20th Congress of the CPSU (1956), although partly justified, was artificially expanded and turned into a weapon against the entire socialist system, which served the interests of Western intelligence services. Conclusions: The chief architects of the substitution of the class struggle with the struggle against "totalitarianism" were: • On the Western side — ideologues such as Brzezinski and structures such as the US NSC. • On the Soviet side — Gorbachev, Yakovlev and their entourage, who acted within the framework of implementing the Harvard Project.

1. Distortion of historical context and substitution of concepts • The propaganda machine, controlled both by Western centers of influence (for example, the CIA and the NTS), and by internal traitors, actively promoted the thesis of the "inevitability" of the collapse of socialism. This process was presented not as the result of external aggression and ideological subversion, but as the "natural exhaustion of the model." • The class essence of the Soviet state was replaced by abstract categories: instead of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the myth of "totalitarianism" was imposed, and instead of the struggle for socialism, the slogans of "universal human values." 2. Manipulation of public consciousness through the media • Publications controlled by the perestroika advocates ("Moscow News," "Ogonyok," "Arguments and Facts") systematically circulated narratives about the "inefficiency of the planned economy" and the "crimes of the Soviet regime." Criticism of individual mistakes (for example, the cult of personality) was artificially expanded to the point of denying the entire socialist system. • Western radio stations ("Voice of America," "Liberty") in a coordinated manner broadcast materials in which the collapse of the USSR was presented as the "voluntary rejection of socialism by the peoples." 3. Falsification of legal and political processes • Under the guise of "democratization," processes were initiated that violated the 1977 Constitution of the USSR. For example, decisions on the sovereignty of the republics were adopted under pressure from unlawful acts (such as Resolution of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR No. 132-1 of 12.06.1990), although according to Article 74 of the USSR Constitution, questions of the state structure fell within the exclusive competence of the Union. • The referendum of March 17, 1991, in which 76.4% of citizens voted to preserve the USSR, was ignored. Instead, under the pretext of a "democratic choice," the Belovezha collusion, which had no legal force, was imposed. 4. Creation of a false alternative and psychological pressure • A false dichotomy was imposed on the population: either the "repressive Union" or a "democratic future" in the form of market reforms. The real goal — the restoration of capitalism — was masked under benevolent slogans. • Through a network of agents of influence (for example, dissidents financed by the West), the idea was introduced that the disintegration of the USSR was a "restoration of historical justice" rather than a national tragedy . 5. The role of the academic and cultural elite. • Part of the intelligentsia, including some economists and historians, under the guise of "scientific analysis" supported the myth of the "non-viability of the USSR." For example, the works of A. Solzhenitsyn and other authors sponsored by foreign foundations were used to demonize the Soviet period. Conclusions: The propaganda machine operated according to a single plan, combining external pressure and internal betrayal. Its goal — to present the destruction of a great power as a "natural" and "democratic" process — was achieved through systematic disinformation, violation of laws, and manipulation of public consciousness. However, from a legal point of view, all these actions are illegitimate and criminal, which is confirmed by the restoration of constitutional order by the State Committee on the State of Emergency (GKChP USSR).

1. Violation of the 1977 Constitution of the USSR. • According to Art. 74 of the Constitution of the USSR, matters of changing the state structure, including the withdrawal of republics from the Union, fell within the exclusive competence of the USSR. The decisions taken in Belovezha Forest were adopted without the sanction of the supreme bodies of power of the USSR — the Congress of People's Deputies and the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. • Art. 72 of the Constitution of the USSR provided for the right of a republic to withdraw from the Union, but exclusively through the procedure established by law, including a referendum and a complex legislative process. None of these procedures was observed. 2. Absence of authority on the part of the signatories. • The persons who signed the agreement (B.N. Yeltsin for the RSFSR, L.M. Kravchuk for the Ukrainian SSR and S.S. Shushkevich for the Byelorussian SSR) did not possess the necessary authority to decide matters of state sovereignty. Their actions went beyond the competence of the heads of republics, since such decisions could be taken only by the people through a referendum or by the supreme bodies of power of the USSR. • The Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR and the government of the USSR did not approve or ratify these agreements, which makes them legally void. 3. Qualification as state treason under criminal legislation. • According to Art. 64 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR (analogous norms were contained in the criminal codes of other union republics, for example, Art. 56 of the Criminal Code of the Ukrainian SSR and Art. 61 of the Criminal Code of the Byelorussian SSR), state treason was recognized as actions aimed at the forcible change of the constitutional order or violation of the territorial integrity of the USSR. • The signing of the Belovezha Accords led to an unlawful change of the constitutional status of the republics and an attempt to abolish the union institutions of power, which fully falls under the elements of the crime provided for by Art. 64 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR. 4. Violation of international legal norms. • From the point of view of international law, the USSR as a subject of international relations continued to exist, which is confirmed by its membership in the UN and other international treaties. The Belovezha Accords were not recognized by the international community as a legitimate act terminating the existence of the USSR. • The actions of the signatories contradicted the principle of territorial integrity enshrined in the UN Charter and constituted an act of separatism having no legal grounds. 5. Position of the restored bodies of power of the USSR. • The Military-People's Council of the USSR (VNS USSR) and the State Committee on the State of Emergency (GKChP USSR) recognized the Belovezha Accords as invalid and qualified them as an anti-constitutional coup. • The territories of the republics that supported the agreements were declared mutinous, and martial law was introduced on their territory in accordance with the laws of the USSR of wartime. Conclusion: The 1991 Belovezha Accords are an act of state treason from the point of view of the legislation of the USSR. Their signing was carried out with gross violations of the Constitution of the USSR, criminal legislation and international norms. These actions had no legal force and did not lead to the termination of the existence of the USSR, which is confirmed by the restoration of constitutional order by the GKChP USSR.

1. The Houston Project and the illegal transfer of assets. • In 1989 in Sevastopol, aboard the cruiser Slava, Gorbachev signed secret agreements within the framework of the so-called Houston Project. These documents provided for the transfer to the United States of the right to finance a coup d'état against the USSR in exchange for obligations to convert Soviet assets into dollar instruments. • The sum of 240 billion dollars in the form of secret bonds was replaced by US Treasury tax certificates, which meant illegal borrowing against the resources of the USSR and the subsequent shifting of the debt onto US taxpayers and USSR citizens through the mechanisms of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC). 2. Betrayal of the interests of the USSR in exchange for political support. • Gorbachev secretly agreed with the US administration (George H. W. Bush) and NATO leaders to cease resistance to the expansion of Western influence in exchange for personal security guarantees and support for his regime. This included: • Refusal to defend allied states in Eastern Europe, which led to the illegal dissolution of the Warsaw Pact. • Consent to the dismemberment of the USSR through fictitious "sovereignization processes," which directly violated Art. 74 of the 1977 USSR Constitution. • In exchange, the West promised "integration into the world community" through the provision of IMF and World Bank loans, which in reality were an instrument for enslaving the USSR economy. 3. Illegitimate transfer of nuclear powers. • On December 25, 1991, Gorbachev in a telephone conversation with George H. W. Bush announced his resignation as Supreme Commander-in-Chief and the transfer of control over strategic nuclear weapons to B.N. Yeltsin — a person who had no constitutional right to them. • This action constituted state treason under Art. 64 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR, since it created a threat to the national security of the USSR and violated international treaties on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. 4. Financial machinations and the creation of corporate structures. • Gorbachev facilitated the creation of fictitious corporate structures (for example, "Russian Federation – Russia"), which were used to appropriate the assets of the USSR through schemes involving tax certificates and bonds. • These actions were coordinated with Western intelligence services and violated: • The USSR Law "On State Property" (1990); • The norms of international law on the sovereignty of states (UN Charter, Art. 2). 5. Recognition of the independence of the Baltic republics. • On September 6, 1991, Gorbachev signed resolutions of the USSR State Council No. GS-1, GS-2, GS-3 on the recognition of the independence of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia without holding referendums and contrary to USSR Law No. 1409-I of 03.04.1990. • This was part of a collusion with the West, which needed legal cover for the dismemberment of the USSR. Legal qualification: The actions of M.S. Gorbachev fully fall under the elements of the crimes provided for by Art. 64 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR (treason to the Motherland), Art. 93¹ of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR (embezzlement of state property on an especially large scale), and also violate the 1977 Constitution of the USSR and international law. The GKChP USSR recognizes these agreements as invalid and criminal. The Soviet people and the restored bodies of power of the USSR do not recognize these criminal schemes. All assets of the USSR are subject to return, and the guilty — to criminal liability. Long live the sovereignty of the USSR!

1. Ideological basis: neoliberal colonialism. • The "Chicago Boys" — graduates of the University of Chicago trained by Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek — acted as agents of the Committee of 300 and the "Club of Rome." Their doctrine, based on monetarism and radical deregulation, had already been tested in Chile (Pinochet's regime) and Poland with catastrophic social consequences. • The goal was not "economic recovery" but: • Deindustrialization through the liquidation of the planned system and the severing of cooperative ties between USSR enterprises; • Converting the economy to a raw-materials model (on the principle of "third world countries") to facilitate its exploitation by transnational corporations. 2. Shock therapy: an instrument of economic genocide. • The shock therapy program imposed on the USSR in 1990–1992 (through such figures as Yegor Gaidar, Anatoly Chubais and foreign advisers Jeffrey Sachs) provided for: • Instant price liberalization without creating market institutions, which led to hyperinflation and the impoverishment of 90% of the population; • The liquidation of state subsidies to industry, which made the functioning of factories and research institutes impossible; • Forced conversion of the ruble under IMF programs, which made it possible to buy up assets for next to nothing. • These measures directly violated Art. 16 of the 1977 USSR Constitution (on state management of the economy) and were carried out without a referendum, which constitutes a state crime. 3. Voucher privatization: a mechanism for plundering public property. • The voucher scheme (1992–1994) was developed with the direct participation of advisers from the IMF and the Harvard Institute for International Development (HIID). Its true goals: • Legal formalization of the transfer of state property into the hands of the oligarchy and foreign corporations through fictitious "vouchers" that had no real value; • Destruction of the collective-farm and state-farm system through permitting the sale of land, which contradicted the USSR Law "On Land" (1990); • Creation of corporate successor structures (such as Gazprom or Norilsk Nickel), which in fact became instruments for siphoning assets abroad ④. • This privatization was carried out in violation of: • Art. 10 of the USSR Constitution (on people's property); • The RSFSR Criminal Code, Art. 93¹ (embezzlement on an especially large scale). 4. The role of the IMF and Western intelligence services. • The IMF, the World Bank and USAID acted as coordinators of the "structural adjustment" of the USSR economy to the interests of global capital. Their "loans" were conditioned on: • The demand to cut social spending (education, healthcare), which led to a humanitarian catastrophe; • The forced opening of markets to foreign goods, which finished off domestic producers; • The introduction of private pension systems and insurance schemes, which became a mechanism for pumping out citizens' savings. • Documents from the database confirm that these plans were discussed as early as the 1980s within the framework of the "Changing Images of Man" project (Stanford Research Institute) and the "Club of Rome." 5. Deindustrialization as a planned result. • According to the GKChP USSR, between 1990 and 2000 the following were destroyed: • 68% of USSR industrial enterprises (especially mechanical engineering, electronics, the defense industry); • 40% of scientific and technical potential; • Millions of jobs transferred to the "informal sector." • This is not a "side effect" but the implementation of the "golden billion" doctrine, in which the USSR was assigned the role of a raw-materials appendage and a testing ground for social experiments. Legal assessment: The actions of the "Chicago Boys," IMF advisers and their accomplices inside the USSR fall under: • Art. 64 of the RSFSR Criminal Code (treason against the Motherland); • Art. 69 of the RSFSR Criminal Code (sabotage); • Art. 93¹ of the RSFSR Criminal Code (embezzlement of state property). All laws of the Russian Federation adopted during this period (for example, on privatization) have no legal force, since they violate the USSR Constitution and international law.