Моя жизнь, крушение и воскрешение СССР. 25 лет спустя (My Life, Collapse and Resurrection of the USSR. 25 Years Later) by Stanislau Shushkevich.

I read a first edition of Stanislau Shushkevich’s autobiography My Life, Collapse and Resurrection of the USSR on one job, which also shared with drinking gluhwein (let’s say, I did that because it was cold.). More than five years ago, I wrote in review it’s impossible to acquire this book. I didn’t know back then that Stanislau Shushkevich released after six years in 2018 a second edition, which is extended and calls My Life, Collapse and Resurrection of the USSR. 25 Years Later. After I recognized about it, I found out that get a second version is impossible till no availability of it either legal or not. That version was published by some Ukrainian firm. I wanted to acquire directly but this company had no traces. It was until few days ago when I had a luck by accidental discovery Professor’s book in one shop.

It is more than a political autobiography and I described about that. This version is larger on almost fifty pages. I hadn’t big hopes they will include more issue of politics in nineties and I find as fine because there was said for enough. Moreover, since that I already have no such interest to a past of that country as it was back then.

I still was in solidarity in thoughts and read again some places in which I was pleased to remind myself that he calls many things as should be. It was so little in disagree with him as that was speaking an impractical on named it as “Russian idea”. I never liked in that language-talking region such conversations on so-called “national idea” thing because such questions shouldn’t be. I didn’t like that word combination due it’s initial guff. However, Professor Shushkevich makes a precise formulation in what he sees in his native land. But from there comes a same one disagreement, which I always had with Doctor Shushkevich. He believed in possibility of democracy. With all respect but a first leader confirms opposite. He wrote a unique book which tells a history of a country where tried to make a democracy. It can’t be with plethora reasons as among them is slave mentality, which couldn’t disappear. His government was in people awaited order from him though Shushkevich tried to deprive that element. In his additions, his writing about scientists and “intellectuals” in contemporary times bring more arguments in that. Professor could disagree with me but he confirms on non-existence of intellectuals in that state. He should have put literature and reality separate. This great man says on what happened with finest.

However, Doctor still had an unchanged hope on young people and that is nonsense. He speaks on that minority which put in prisons but men who were disagree were before. But among them and it’s a lot of them are no good personalities. I wrote full in that direction and I only want to reason on having disagree with my deeply respected Professor that he presented a wrong common vision in Muscovy-speaking world that school’s marks identify a personality. He knew that staying communist education makes person a slave. It begins from that. A teacher enters, all class stands up at the desks and waits when they will get permission to sit. There you can’t choose subjects you want to learn and ignore those which are not your taste. You will be condemned if you can’t study that you don’t like. Discussions and an expression of personal opinion don’t exist. Lessons of literature, which has a limited choice between local and Muscovian, is reading a book and somebody’s view on it, which you should say for getting a good mark. However, I never saw a student who took care on anything of that. He and she execute what was said and will harass if you disagree. You will be criticized by teachers and students if express own absence of desire to give money for go with everyone in museum or anything else. The most prone to docile service are students who with the highest marks. They don’t learn for themselves, because if you ask or you can see they don’t know a basic question years later. Same effect in talking with any university professors and specialists in that state. Teachers put marks by doing orientation on previous ones and no matter how you tried to answer or write your essay good. Professor Shushkevich knew that last because he didn’t look on what student had before when he and she passed his subject in university and this made many times that people with bad marks received good ones and vice versa. I had same with adults who obeyed to what superiors pronounced. I dropped or, correct to say, I can’t have contact with many people because they listened regime as it was acceptance a new law, which, as any, I couldn’t consider as legitimate. Respectively, I can’t accept and talk with those men who made kids in all these territories.

With all my love to Doctor Shushkevich again, but he makes a misjudgment on democracy though it’s rightly begin on no presence of civilization. Even despite Professor was a famous person but he couldn’t but see a savageness of this society. I can’t agree that majority are against. Even in his book’s words he brings to why people and youth are hopeless. A grandiose corroboration has a documentary film of incredible director Yuriy Haschevastskiy, which calls The Square. It’s author visits one village in that country. He meets locals who make a common in Muscovy-speaking lands request, which, of course, in aggressive tone and with usage of mat, to put away a camera. But a filmmaker reaches them for conversation. They speak how they live terrible but later reveals that they will vote for a dictator with “both hands up” as one woman says. It was a demonstration of a thing which in every village. And I shouldn’t repeat how I saw that support and obedience outside of rural areas. That happened recalls me a Czech tale. These “Young Wolves” or I prefer to call “vultures” with their aspiring to power leader made a golem for own purposes but their creation went against them and they couldn’t stop him.

Professor Stanislau Shushkevich makes a positive portrait of Eltsin in that he didn’t let to spill blood in some his decisions but I don’t see honest to praise that man. Doctor told in interviews and his book corroborates in embed documents that this man didn’t want an independence of anybody on Muscovy territory. Eltsin was same imperialist. I think, Shushkevich was supposed to remember a war with Chechnya.

The first leader makes a beautiful post scriptum about Zbigniew Brzezinski by telling on personal experience, his perception and a magnificent personality of this man. It was wonderful until Professor disrupted by making an incorrect Doctor Brzezinski’s expression on Donald Trump. A chapter turns chaotic in structure there and follows by quoting an “interview” with George H.W. Bush who “speaks negative” on National Security Advisor and collapse of the Soviets and then ends of Brzezinski’s “sad vision” on changing in Poland without adding details of what happening there because Shushkevich praises this country whole book.

Reading of that interview gave suspicion on that is a fake. I never saw Bush spoke in such loose and insulting tone. That was in sentences building and saying because natives in English don’t talk that way and I knew at least that Muscovy speak such words. The interview read as forgery which usually did in the Soviets because that stylistics they gave to leaders of “rotting West” for showing them how bad guys these men are. Certainly, I made a checking. I already found out it’s a Muscovy hoax. Their disinformation machine lost sophistication long time ago and degrades more as I see.

I can’t assume other with “that saying” by Zbigniew Brzezinski than about when Polish government stripped courts in independence. He didn’t say these words. Doctor was easygoing on happening in Poland by uttering as it’s temporary because governments change.

Stanislau Shushkevich had a clever mind as erudite and intellectual but he was supposed to convince in finding out a truth. It’s strange that “Bush’s interview” didn’t become suspicious for him. Some reckless was in many additions in which he makes a common judgement by having a single experience and his impressions from journeys happened after publishing of the first edition reads as encyclopedia then a useful experience.

Nevertheless, I don’t blame him in anything. I delighted to have this book in it’s definitive edition finally. It’s reading goes as sliding on ice and comes in final to satisfactory in watching on photos (I noticed an absence of that with a Mexican friend from a six years before version). Stanislau Shushkevich added more images and they keep to incredible in people and information.