Yeltsin полностью

The bad blood between Yeltsin and Gorbachev showed in the weekly meetings of the Politburo in the autumn of 1986. It was unmistakable there, though not yet on the outside, when the Politburo sat on January 19, 1987, to deliberate Gorbachev’s report to the Central Committee plenum on political change, just around the corner.¹⁵ Yeltsin heard out Gorbachev on the draft report and then recited a litany of twenty suggestions for improvement. Several were bellicosely worded. The manuscript, he said, oversold the accomplishments of reform, and bureaucratic foot-dragging made it unwise “to succumb to optimism.” Comparisons of perestroika with the 1917 revolution, such as Gorbachev was given to, were “worthless,” since the Soviet social structure was not being transfigured. “It would be better to say simply that perestroika has something of a revolutionary character.” Even as moderate reform, Yeltsin continued, perestroika, or “restructuring,” had been more buzzword than reality. “Certain people are disinclined toward revolutionary changes. It is best to appraise the current period as one of new forms of work leading toward perestroika.” Yeltsin detoured to belittle a paragraph in the Gorbachev document claiming that the fundamentals of the regime guaranteed success: “The guarantees enumerated—the socialist system, the Soviet people, the party—have been around for lo these seventy years! So none of them is a guarantee against a return to the past.” The only insurance policy would be “democratization of all spheres of life,” and that had been barely put in motion, especially in spheres, such as local government, that dealt directly with people. Yeltsin ended with demands for identification by name of the authors of wrongful decisions in the present and past Soviet governments, for term limits for leaders, and for a discussion of ethnic relations in the USSR. Gorbachev said that Yeltsin’s time was up and stormed out of the room.¹⁶

When he resumed the chair a half hour later, Gorbachev made a scathing attack on the Moscow dynamo. “Boris Nikolayevich,” he observed, “deviates from our common assessment” by throwing out “loud and vacuous” reproofs. Personalized judgments had their place, but Yeltsin often lost sight of more general points and in Moscow was overseeing endless staff turnover and reorganization. “We cannot break the knees of the party and society. We need to speak respectfully about the party members who have been carrying and will carry the load and who are experiencing losses. They may have weaknesses but they have strengths, too.”¹⁷ The two swapped comments about Yeltsin’s overheated style, in which Yeltsin accepted Gorbachev’s rebuke only to hear Gorbachev restate it:

GORBACHEV: Let us not overdramatize, but this kind of conversation has been good for Boris Nikolayevich’s practical work. He cannot be immune to the criticism that he calls on all of us to make. . . .

YELTSIN: I am a novice on the Politburo. For me this has been a lesson. I don’t think it came too late.

GORBACHEV: You and I have already had words on this subject. By all means, take the lesson to heart. This conversation has been necessary. But you are an emotional person. I don’t think your observations will change our attitude toward you. We have a high opinion of your work. Just remember that we have to work together. You are not to set yourself [apart from us] or to show off in front of your comrades.

“I was beside myself,” Yeltsin recounts, at Gorbachev’s “almost hysterical” reaction to his well-intentioned statement.¹⁸ In a birthday call to Vitalii Vorotnikov, the head of the Russian government, on January 20, Gorbachev confided that the Politburo skirmish had left him with a “sour aftertaste.” Yeltsin was getting too big for his britches, pinning the blame for every snafu on predecessors and superiors, and “playing around with the masses.”¹⁹ Yeltsin paid his respects to Vorotnikov and asked if he had been too abrupt at the meeting. You have every right to take part, Vorotnikov answered, but you should do it more calmly and self-effacingly. “You are forever the accuser, the exposer. You speak acerbically, categorically. You can’t get away with that.”²⁰