Because of the circumstances — the eighties year of life and health status — I now have enough time to spend in front of TV.
And, of course, I could not fail to note the exceptional activity of all channels towards the twenty-five years of the coup of the summer 1991: archival footage, interviews with participants in the events. It is clear that television could “respond” to the jubilee only in the presence of directives from “above”.
I’m not just for this quarter of a century, wrote about the coup. Starting with the article “August ninety-first published in 1992, “news”, and ending with the chapters in my book 2016 “First mayor”. I was both a witness and participant in the events. Was the only person who has carried out together with Boris Nikolayevich Yeltsin all night from 19 to 20 August in the bunker under the White house in anticipation of the assault. But I still can’t tell, as they say in such cases, “the truth, the whole truth, the whole truth.” But since we have before us a definite attempt by the authorities to rethink the story and give her a new official interpretation, some of my comments you consider appropriate.
Leading gear showed undoubted professionalism, creativity and in General, delivered his challenge. So the logical question: what was the task, what new interpretation of the events of August 1991 want to see the power of today’s Russia and why she needs such an interpretation?
First response: next September the State Duma elections and other voting.
The campaign is sluggish — as it was intended. Chose for her a period when most citizens are busy with their “home” Department: garden, recreation, etc. On it and counting. But it is so boring that there have been concerns over voter turnout, which is difficult to lure even making the ballot the column “against all”. So I decided to use the “anniversary” of the coup as a fresh “firewood” in the dim campfire the electoral process. On its own it is a sound step.
But there are more significant, not tactical, and strategic goals. President Vladimir Putin has carried out a long overdue and much needed twist of the whole General line of Russia. This course can be called a return to the great power that for centuries has kept Russia and the decades of the USSR. This turn requires a new interpretation of pre-revolutionary history and Soviet history, especially the last thirty years. Naturally, you need to give a new interpretation of the 1991 coup.
I will not touch different kinds of particulars. Well, for example: how should they react leading to the story of someone from the participants of the event about their behavior and their deeds in the days of the coup, if not survived the other participants? Of course, we had to thank for the memories, but did it have to be noted that, unfortunately, your story is impossible to verify as historical fact.
I further surprised by the position of leading, which quoted penitential letter to Mikhail Gorbachev from V. A. Kryuchkov, or D. T. Yazov. How can you accept the truth of these letters after all, what have we learned about the letters to Stalin from prison on the same Bukharin! Prison is a place where people think not about the truth, and of their fate.
Observations of this kind have a lot. But I would like to dwell on the fact home that, in my opinion, wittingly or unwittingly lost in transmission.
2. The subject of the coup
What was the purpose of the coup?
Version of Yeltsin’s time was simple. It was based on the story about the overheard and the conversation passed Kryuchkov to Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Nazarbayev about the need to change the key figures of the Soviet leadership, after signing a new Union Treaty. That was made by the putschists for the sake of their jobs.
In this version ignored the obvious fact that neither a day nor a week nor a month it is impossible to prepare the measures which were going to carry out a putsch. The emergency Committee could not rely on carefully pre-designed plan.
But more importantly, circumstance. Yes, among the highest stratum of leaders there are always careerists. But they were the backbone of the emergency Committee.
I knew for many years Valentin Pavlov as an employee of Gosplan and the Finance Minister, then led the all-Union economic society. When it it I was elected people’s Deputy of the USSR. It was a competent economist, a wonderful person, sincerely devoted to the ideas of state socialism, and no less sincere supporter of reform.
I knew Nikolay Kruchina, a student of the Institute, where he taught my parents and whose signature as Secretary of the Komsomol of Kazakhstan Novocherkassk is in my Komsomol ticket. It was a very special man, humble and honest.
Worse still, I knew, and V. A. Kryuchkov. Real professional foreign intelligence, vain set of unknown cases in the country, for the leadership which is much more suited for F. D. Bobkov.
I knew little and A. I. Lukyanov. Experienced and competent. Credible reviews knew about D. T. Asove, VI Varennikov, S. F. Akhromeyev, B. K. Pugo, O. D. Baklanova. It was above all the idea people, state people. They could not go to the coup based only on their personal interests. I’m sure they were worried not that they will be replaced, but who will replace them. In this they saw a threat to the interests of the country, as they understood them.
Each of them knew that, if he bn.Yeltsin, who immediately found for him a post. And the version of “selfish”, “personal” coup doesn’t approach them.
Why did bn.Yeltsin seized on the “personal” version? For the version of a narrow circle of conspirators, almost a handful of the elders?
As a smart leader, he knew that this version gives him the opportunity to withdraw from the blow, saved from cleaning the entire Soviet nomenklatura. After all, he had already decided to rely on the item. Without it he could not retain power. A version of “narrow and selfish handful” have solved the problem of cleaning the Augean stables of bureaucratic socialism. It is strange that it still does not want to recognize other Democrats supporting Yeltsin and today version.
In fact, the coup is the final link in the a dispute within the Communist nomenklatura on ways of reforming the country. On the one hand, supporters of reforming the system of state socialism (keeping it). On the other, the supporters of reform with the creation in the end of the new socialism, updated, and humane. Third is the reformers nomenklatura, ready for two things. Any results of the reforms, but there was created an effective system. Need a cat who, in the words of Deng Xiaoping, the best catches mice. But any reform we, the item must remain in power to lead the country.
So talk about the restoration of Stalin, Khrushchev or Brezhnev socialism as the goal of the coup is nonsense. Especially the nonsense about the prospect of repression and terror. Moreover, almost was already apparent unreality and options for the reform of Soviet socialism, and Gorbachev — updated and humane. And it was about conditions under which steering to Yeltsin, the terms of surrender. And most importantly, who will share the inheritance of bureaucratic socialism. For business people it was important.
About it could not agree. Went to sign a new Union Treaty without solving the main issue: on the future of the ruling elite. This was the main basis of the coup.
Each of us — the experience of friends and acquaintances, and sometimes personal — knows how difficult it is to share even a small inheritance. And then something big — the USSR. Even in the republics, it was difficult to share “their”. And then a giant national heritage. Army and base. Nuclear weapons, and polygons. Space and spaceport. Production complexes. And so on to hundreds of embassies. And another million citizens living in the republics.
In the countries of market economy and democracy a vast experience of trade negotiations and deals, the experience of employers and trade unions, the experience of coalitions in parliaments and in the formation of governments. But in the West, agreements are not easy to remember that Spain no longer has government. And in the Soviet Union?
The Soviet bureaucracy had great leadership experience in economic, military, social and other fields. But the whole Leninist ideology, the whole practice of the socialist system, the whole system of Directive command categorically rejected any compromise. “If the enemy does not surrender — it destroy you.” “Liquidate the kulaks as a class”. If removed from the post or stretch the fence of the garden, or in a remote location. Etc., etc. and no experience of the arrangements, agreements, mutual concessions, compromises. Differences between Gorbachev and Yeltsin could not, with such experience and such ideologues do not become deep personal enmity. Is the command, decision-making, the essence of totalitarian socialism have formed a leaders unable to compromise. Around such a giant cake, like the Soviet legacy, could not break out the coup.
TV channels from the analysis of the essence of the coup was avoided. But to stay on Yeltsin concept anymore. Here and there was such a scheme. There are among the putschists sincere people — those who fought for the preservation of the USSR. Correct. And there are those who defended their personal interests. So many named enemies, enemies are conditional because they were for the Soviet Union.
Well, the authors of the new version of the coup, everything is clear. But I was surprised by the “modesty” of leading. Why didn’t they ask those who hysterically screaming, “I defended the Soviet Union!”, logical question: what of the USSR?
Six republics do not want any Soviet Union and even the Commonwealth. How to be with them? Send six republics troops? As in Chechnya? And get six wars? Or are you for the USSR, but without the six republics? Then tell me about it. Or are you for the USSR, but not one that occurs in the form of the Commonwealth? In General, you are for the old USSR and the war in six republics, or the USSR you mean something else?
And, of course, the question about reforms. Are you in favor of Union with the old Soviet administrative socialism or reformed? Then you are for what kind of reforms? What you are more interested in the preservation of the USSR or the preservation of the Soviet socialism? In short, if you want to “strip” version “For USSR!” it was easy to prove that the dispute was not at all about the Soviet Union, and about what the USSR.
Of course, the new approach is better than Yeltsin. But it is insufficient. He does not give soil for the formation of a new concept of reforms of Russia of the XXI century, which would restore the great power, without which Russia will not survive, and would ensure Russia’s survival in the coming century.
photo: Alexander Astafyev
3. The main factor
All channels in all programs of the emergency Committee persistently avoided the question about what was the main factor in the course of the coup.
This main factor was the people in General and Muscovites in particular.
Of course, I know about the thousands of people at the Palace square in Petersburg, where my friend and colleague mayor Anatoly Sobchak — were able to control the local emergency Committee (by the way, one of the assistant Sobchak was Vladimir Putin). I know from SN.Krasavchenko about the thousands of citizens in the squares of Yekaterinburg, which decided to place a “reserve” of the Russian government. I know about the rallies in the squares of other cities. About phone support for Yeltsin from the side of the head Landsbergis of Lithuania. And still a lot.
But I am absolutely convinced that the main factor and stroke, and outcome of the coup, thousands, tens, hundreds of thousands of Muscovites. They were afraid most of all of the emergency Committee. That is to intimidate them in Moscow, he sent troops and tanks.
But Moscow, not Prague, not Budapest, not even Tbilisi or Baku. Here, the Russian army has met with his people. Here’s looking at you not as an enemy, but as a serving son, brother, grandson. Bring food. Watered tea. Here stood the very girl with whom tomorrow to create a family, raise children. And everything from the sellers at the kiosks to old women on benches — its your brand. Even the kids climbed on the tanks.
And the army made a decision. Not the result of Yeltsin’s speeches, or Newspapers and television. As a result of communication with Muscovites. In their, the Russians, we won’t be shooting. But Muscovites are not considered enemies of the soldiers and officers entered to Moscow parts. Repeat the Polish version of the Jaruzelski — the option of a military coup — a putsch failed. Moreover, it was necessary urgently, almost daily, change parts, they will immediately start to decompose”, to lose reliability.
Three factors determined the behavior of the Muscovites and the army.
First, the genetic memory of the Russian people. Seventy years of Soviet power — the blood of civil war, famine, collectivization, repression and 1937, and after the war — so etched in the very soul of the people, it became clear at the end of the twentieth century Russian in Russian would not shoot. And never for that.
Secondly, Muscovites are already 16 months lived under the new government, the Moscow city Council and the mayor — elected by them. And this power is exercised by the free privatization of apartments, and introduced free travel for pensioners, allowances for each child, highlight the gardens, desperately struggling with a deficit. Of the correctness of his choice made during the voting, the Moscovites to see. Hence the reaction to the attempt to establish a different government.
Right from morning, hundreds of thousands of people, especially young people, went to the White house. The great role played by the courage of Boris Yeltsin, who came to the White house. But the main thing was the determination of the residents themselves. The White house has been a perennial fighter against the Soviet system Mstislav Rostropovich, and long-term fighter for the Soviet system, a supporter of the reforms, Eduard Shevardnadze. Very symbolic, three of whom were killed in the defense of the White house. Dmitry Komar party of the Afghan war, the work of construction of the cooperative, Vladimir Usov — employee joint venture, entrepreneur, Ilya Krichevsky — artist. For democracy, for a new life gave their lives, not bystanders. They know what they want and for what you fight. They were ready to fight to the end and stood.
In late 1989, making the decision to move from the Great hall of the Kremlin Palace is not even in the Russian Parliament, and later in Moscow, I thought that in the case of a possible military confrontation — as happened many times in history, the decisive factor will be the position and actions of the population of the capital. And the deputies of the Moscow city Council and Moscow government, and I did everything that the “soul” of the Muscovites there was not the slightest doubt on which side of the barricades to be.
Muscovites have always had a lot of privileges. But now they had to use a great privilege, on behalf of all the people to do something that is not able to do, physically can’t manage the citizens of this country: give their name back to the coup. And this privilege of Muscovites used, giving their lives to protect the White house. It is the duty of Muscovites to Russia was made in Russian- in full, as stated in the Chronicles, “not sparing the stomach”. You can use the words of L. N. Thick of the battle of Borodino: France “resulted in a hand this strong spirit of the enemy.”
All this we heard nothing on television. Nor about the heroism of the defenders of the White house, almost did not have weapons. Neither the staff of his defense, headed by A. V. Rutskoi. Neither of those thousands of women and girls who watered and fed the soldiers and tank crews. Or the officer who led his tanks to protect the White house. Neither of the courage of journalists who started under the leadership of Yegor Yakovlev to publish a “General newspaper”. Nor about the heroic behavior of the journalists, who managed to show the country trembling hands of the emergency Committee members, the reaction of Muscovites to the coup.
And distinctive personal story. In the night from 20th to 21th at my dacha in the writers ‘ village left a wife and son, becoming Chairman of the city Council and then mayor, I refused the offer and state house and state apartments). The guard I took in the White house was not enough armed men. The son also rushed to me, but I convinced him to stay with her mother. However, he left the machine with two horns. During his service in the army he was a driver install, but the machine also owned. In the evening of the 20th came to them Fazil Iskander with his wife. Then Leah Akhedzhakova with her husband Alexander Orlov. Then the neighbor Kusnirovich with two graduate students. “We’re going all night you have to be witnesses to your arrest.” Knowing the story, I thought about the remarkable personal qualities. And about how the country has changed in comparison with Stalin’s time, when not that door was locked — the Windows were draped, barely hearing the noise funnel. In a country with such citizens, the coup was doomed.
Television programs about the coup completely “lost” such a massive national event like the demolition of monuments to figures of the Soviet system, especially of the monument to Dzerzhinsky. Well, there was nothing, nothing to remember. Although the same S. B. Stankevich could tell a lot.
Almost “came” out of sight, and the seizure of the building of the Central Committee of the CPSU. But it was a story of importance similar to the storming of the Bastille in Paris the storming of the Winter Palace and the protection of the White house. A. I. musicians ‘ could also tell a lot.
But the final “stroke” of ignoring people was the government’s decision not to allow in this anniversary year, the meetings or on the spot death of three heroes of defense nor at the place near the monument to the defenders of the White house.
Well on state awards for thousands of defenders of the White house on the occasion of the twenty-five years of the victory over the coup, and speech could not be.
This is very understandable. Bureaucracy animal with a shudder recalls a time when she did not, and the people become the main force of the story.
photo: Gennady Cherkasov
4. About the characters
In the programs on television made an attempt adequately to represent the main participants on both sides. In these interviews an undoubted merit of the heads of TV channels. But much remains behind the scenes.
First of all talked about the almost randomness of the coup. Learn about the conversation of Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Nazarbayev started.
In fact, the contingency plan was ready long ago. Yes it and cannot be any self-respecting state. It should be all ready to implement this plan on the first call. But there’s nothing about this plan, about preparing its people did not recognize.
Further about the coup. How can you say that neither Gorbachev nor Yeltsin about the coup didn’t know anything? I have already written about it. As he wrote in his book and the then US Ambassador to Russia Matlock. About how I came to it in the early summer of 1991 and asked me to convey to Yeltsin, who was in the US, my information about the impending emergency and request immediate return to the country. The US President rushed to inform about my request, not bn.Yeltsin and Mikhail Gorbachev. So about new information I knew many.
The whole story is reminiscent of Stalin’s attempts to represent Hitler’s attack as a sudden — although he himself month after month rejected the information our scouts about the intention of Hitler to start a war.
What determines the position of the main actors?
Another could not understand why Gorbachev suddenly want in such a difficult moment to relax and even flew to the Crimea.
But everything looks different if we assume that Gorbachev had a conversation with the leaders of the putsch. He rejected their offer, that was certain. But he did not and to remove them from their posts. He left. To hell with you! If you succeed — you without me will not do. If that doesn’t work — I can have something with all of you to leave.
I do not know whether Mikhail Gorbachev did not understand that in case of victory of the coup he can return only “hobbled” and — for sure — only for a very short period of time? While the leaders of the emergency Committee will elect their own leader.
Gorbachev did not use the situation after the coup. However, he Sobchak invited me to be part of the presidential Council. But the real “kitchen” don’t let the main discussion go on without us. Gorbachev returned to the top Soviet leadership for their colleagues in the beginning of Perestroika — A. N. Yakovlev and Shevardnadze. And most importantly: he didn’t use his trump card — the Congress of people’s deputies of the USSR. It was necessary to convene the Congress immediately. To deprive of mandates of deputies — members of the emergency Committee and of the deputies of the Republic which refused to sign the Union Treaty. And make the “cleaned” Congress a major force.
B. N. Yeltsin also could not know about the coup. Without my information. But one of the leaders of the coup — V. A. Kryuchkov, apparently, would not save Gorbachev and opted for the bn.Yeltsin. He probably suggested Yeltsin to head the USSR instead of Gorbachev. He was sure going to work. Most likely, they had a serious conversation. Not one.
About the presence of some kind of agreement between Yeltsin and Kryuchkov I understood from their phone conversation on the night of 20 to 21 August (sitting together with Yeltsin in the White house bunker). I understand that to refer to a conversation “without witnesses,” he said. But in this case I am sure that all phone conversations are recorded somewhere and all can be installed.
Characteristically, Yeltsin’s first hours after the news of the coup was waiting for something. All morning. Looks like waiting for invitations Kryuchkov. Instead, he learned that the acting President of the USSR becomes the President of the Russian Federation and Vice-President of the Gorbachev retinue.
Yeltsin realized that he was not the only candidate for the position of Gorbachev, and some kind of “fallback” for the emergency Committee. And he, brilliantly, all counted, made the decision to oppose the putsch, for “legitimate” Gorbachev. Having made this decision, he was extremely consistent and behaved firmly. It was he — I was there — took a courageous decision not to go to the American Embassy (which was in two steps) and to stay in the White house in anticipation of the assault and all its consequences for himself.
But fear of the scale of popular protest against the putsch, he always had. As a populist, he inspired and was inspired by the mass of people. And as the Soviet nomenklatura and partyrocker, he could not understand how dangerous for him the people’s activity.
He never held a reception for the White house defenders. And went to the meeting with deputies of the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR. A third of them had to “check” on involvement in the coup and expel. By the way, after this cleaning would hardly be possible in the autumn of 1993.
Yeltsin was not found neither in the army nor in his office to the officer who brought their tanks to the White house. And for active participants of the defense of the White house.
And most importantly. He pardoned and participants of the coup of 1991, and participants of the bloody fall of 1993. It was “his”. Opponents, but by and large “own.” But the masses and their leaders-Democrats was Yeltsin’s only companions on his journey to power.
5. The error of the Democrats
The Democrats and their vanguard — the “Democratic Russia” bypassed in the transmission of the emergency Committee. As well as the people. As Muscovites. It’s natural. It would be a strange treatment from the government channels to the Democrats. But liberal channels, though invited Democrats from the analysis of their actions is avoided. I’ll try to make a few comments on this subject.
The Democrats made two fatal mistakes.
First. They did not appreciate all the possibilities and the prospects of high enthusiasm and exceptional activity of the masses after the victory over the coup.
Thousands of excited people went to Moscow and other cities. They longed for action. They smashed the monuments, but I understand that it is a trifle. They didn’t understand why Yeltsin was limited to the dissolution apparatus in the organs of the Communist party and did not touch such offenders million, as the Prosecutor’s office, courts, security agencies and the police. Why not clean the entire Soviet system at least from those who clean in Germany, to give to justice those leaders of the GDR, which violated the laws of the GDR.
Of course, the Democrats participated along with the masses of Muscovites and in the demolition of the monument to Dzerzhinsky, and the seizure of the building of the Central Committee of the Communist party, and in the capture of buildings of the district committees and regional committees. They are thus struck the most telling blows. The new Russian Communist party, keep it material reserves of the Communist party, would be a formidable force.
The Democrats, in my opinion, played a prominent role and that the removal of the CPSU from power does not turned into a bloody Russian revolt, senseless and merciless (in the words of A. S. Pushkin).
The people were ready for radical measures is I saw near the monument to Dzerzhinsky. To ensure that after the demolition of the monument to carry, as the Bastille — and all the buildings of the KGB. And only the position of the Democrats prevented a turn towards traditional Russian pogrom.
But try to arrange the streets of the masses, ready to sacrifice themselves for the party or the other a clear organization the Democrats could not or would not. They were to deny themselves the support, which could be the asset movement against the coup.
In General, to crush the coup, the popular movement, the Democrats turned into the main tool of cleaning the country from all the abominations of bureaucratic socialism.
Second mistake. The Democrats are not realized immediately after the coup has changed the attitude towards them B. N. Yeltsin. He has now defeated his enemies in the leadership of the Communist party. He defeated and humiliated, Mikhail Gorbachev. Yeltsin, as Chicks to the hen, rushed now all the apparatchiks. And he no longer need the Democrats. He does not accept their ideas about the reforms taking into account the interests of the people. Such reforms are needed that will first and foremost defend its interests and the interests of its class, the nomenklatura and the bureaucracy.
Yeltsin believed that any minute now could remove Gorbachev. The problem, he thought, not Gorbachev, and what to do then. When the reform model, it is possible to solve the problem of the USSR and Gorbachev. The model of the Moscow reform Popov, Yeltsin did not fit — not to the actual owner of the whole field or plants received as much as an ordinary citizen. Burbulis said that the US strongly suggest you look at the model Gaidar. One thing is clear: first find a model of reform for Russia, and then addressed to Gorbachev with his failed Union.
The Democrats just haven’t seen it. Flirted cheered. Especially those who hoped “the heat” under the wing of Yeltsin and in the seats of his power. They abandoned the long overdue demarcation with Yeltsin: we for Yeltsin, leading the reform, but against all attempts to reform only at the expense of the people.
To pay for the failure of cleaning, and refusal of the organization national vanguard, for “killing” words, if I am not mistaken, the scientist A. Neklessy — the people’s enthusiasm for the “hostis” under Yeltsin, the Democrats had immediately. And in the absence of Belovezhskaya agreements obligations for all the former Soviet republics to introduce dual citizenship, with the result that twenty million Russians became second-class citizens. And to eliminate all the cash savings of millions of citizens — just before the beginning of privatization. The Democrats do not want to admit his mistake support Gaidar. And, consequently, cannot count on a return of confidence the main part of the people and the intelligentsia.
This suggests that not only the power but also the Democrats of Russia is not ready to truly comprehend putsch 91-go year. And if today almost 50% of citizens don’t know anything about the coup, this is the fault of those who do not comprehend its results. And the people with his great sense caught the falseness of the official version of the Yeltsin coup and therefore not interested in a coup.
This suggests that the main losers from the victory over the coup, it became the Democrats. To prevent the movement of Russia to the new system of the nomenklatura-oligarchic way they could not. But to protect the maximum interests of the people were required.
Am getting results.
The coup staged that part of the Soviet nomenklatura, which did not suit her role in the upcoming division of the Soviet legacy. She lost and surrendered at discretion.
The winner was B. N. Yeltsin, who led the entire bureaucracy as a class and have had the opportunity in the future to impose on the country acceptable to the bureaucracy reform model.
Victory over the coup meant for the leader of the Soviet bureaucracy. It was Boris Yeltsin. Other left just under it or in opposition. Opened the way for the formation in Russia of Yeltsin’s nomenklatura-oligarchic post-industrialism.
Lost not so much a coup, as the people and the Democrats, who failed to take advantage of its decisive role in the defeat of the coup and to establish a system of protection of their interests in the future epoch of Yeltsin’s reforms.
THOUGHTS ABOUT THE FUTURE: THE PLANET, EUROPE, RUSSIA
We invite you to the Assembly a lecture of Gabriel Popova
6 September at 10.00 in the Great hall of the International University in Moscow (Leningradsky prospect, 17) will host a lecture of the Chairman of the Board of founders of the University Professor Gavriil Popov on the topic: “Thoughts on the future: the planet, Europe, Russia.”
The idea of the utopian socialists, representing humanity as a single family, in other words, the birth of a new civilization, can be realized in the near future. What are the prerequisites that swirl amongst economic crises and environmental catastrophes? As the birthplace of a new civilization? What to expect from the modern waves of migration? Who is a reasonable man and what he needs? Why the mechanism of the current populist democracy-oriented elected for maximum two terms, that is, 8-10 years, representative and Executive authority, makes the “non-systemic” the question about long-term?
Traditionally, the doctor of Economics and Chairman of the Board of founders of the International University in Moscow, Professor Gavriil Kharitonovich Popov delivers a welcome speech to freshmen and stands in September with an Assembly lecture to students and guests of the University. This year the theme of the lecture “Thoughts on the future: the planet, Europe, Russia” will continue the series of articles published in the spring in “Moskovsky Komsomolets”, and papers presented at meetings of the Free economic society of Russia and International Union of economists.
Lecture at the International University in Moscow will be held September 6, 2016 in the Grand auditorium of the University.
Guests arrive at 9.30. For event registration by phone +7-495-308-12-12. You should have the document proving the identity.
Putsch: three days in August. Chronicle of events