It is an indisputable fact that the disintegration of the Soviet Union was caused by political, economic, social, ethnic and other factors, among which ethnic issues were one of the important factors. This paper intends to analyze the deep-seated reasons for the disintegration of the Soviet Union from a national perspective.

The historical background and conditions of the formation of the Soviet Union

The former Soviet Union is a federal country with national characteristics. Before the disintegration of 199 1, it was composed of 15 participating countries, 20 autonomous countries, 8 autonomous prefectures and 10 ethnic areas. Such a complicated national system is rare in the world.

The predecessor of the Soviet Union was the Russian Empire. Russia is a small country, with only 2.8 million square kilometers in the middle of the 6th century. Since16th century, Russia has gradually expanded, successively annexing Transcaucasia, Central Asia, Baltic countries, Siberia and the Far East, forming a great empire covering more than 100 nationalities and more than a dozen religions, spanning two continents of Europe and Asia.

The area annexed by the Russian Empire is actually its colony. The difference between the colonies of the Russian Empire and the colonies of the British Empire is that these colonies are connected with the mainland of the Russian Empire. Russia is known as the "prison of all nationalities" because of its cruel ethnic oppression.

19 At the end of the 20th century, the world national liberation movement surged, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire disintegrated one after another, and various ethnic groups in Russia also revolted and established their own nation-state. In fact, Russia is divided. Only because of the victory of the October Revolution and the subsequent establishment of the Soviet Union did a number of independent small countries not form in the territory of the former Russian Empire.

The voice of the October Revolution began in Petersburg and then spread to other regions. Although there are revolutionary forces in ethnic minority areas, they are weak, and the political power is mostly in the hands of the bourgeoisie and the Mensheviks. Only with the help of the Red Army, which is mainly composed of Russians, did Ukraine, Transcaucasia and Central Asia establish red regimes. In the Baltic region, the regime was finally controlled by the bourgeoisie, but the then Soviet government acknowledged this reality. Poland and Finland also gained independence from Russia not long ago.

In order to deal with foreign armed intervention, solve a series of political and economic problems faced at that time, and enable the newly born red regime to survive, some countries in power, such as the Russian Federation, Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, and so on, felt it necessary to take the road of unity. However, on the issue of how to unite, there were differences between the leaders of the Russian Central Committee and ethnic minority areas at that time. Lenin and Stalin used different methods. Lenin advocated federalism, that is, independent countries formed alliances in a voluntary, equal and democratic way. Stalin advocated that Ukraine and other countries should join the Russian Federation as autonomous republics. Previously, Bashkir, Kazakhstan and other regions became part of the Russian Federation in this way. When discussing the alliance plan, the leaders of Georgia and Belarus disagreed with Stalin's plan. In Georgia, there were even incidents of beating people who disagreed with Stalin's plan. Finally, the Soviet Union was established according to Lenin's vision. The biggest feature of this scheme is that all republics are still "sovereign" countries, and the alliance is composed of ethnic groups, which is very open and can be "freely" withdrawn. At that time, the formation of the Soviet Union, in addition to the needs and aspirations of the above-mentioned * * * and state-owned * * *, also had a very important condition, that is, the * * * production parties leading independent countries at that time were unified, that is, they were all led by Russia and were regional organizations of Russia * * * *. The existence of a unified production party is an indispensable condition for the establishment of the Soviet Union. Even so, some countries reluctantly joined the Soviet Union. At that time, ethnic minorities complained from time to time about the chauvinism of Great Russia led by some departments of the Russian Federation, and there was constant friction between countries.

The establishment of the Soviet Union should be attributed to Lenin and his thought of national equality and flexible policy. Soviet scholars later said that the federalism with ethnic characteristics was created by Lenin, which was not an exaggeration, because the federalism in most countries in the world was established with regional characteristics. This form of federalism characterized by nationality makes scattered small countries form a big country, which is in line with Lenin's thought that a big country is conducive to socialist construction. With the establishment of the Soviet Union, the territory and ethnic composition of the former Russian Empire basically remained within the framework of the Soviet Union. A new regime and system was born in the territory of the former Russian empire, and its founder Lenin died of illness soon. Stalin succeeded him to take charge of the new regime, but this man did not completely abandon the chauvinism legacy of the Russian empire, which made Lenin's ideal of "national equality" vanish under the new system he created.

The Destruction of Stalin System to Ethnic Relations

Stalin gradually controlled the power of the Soviet Union from the late 1920s and began to form his own management system, the so-called "Stalin system". This system was used in the Soviet Union for nearly 60 years, and it didn't change gradually until Gorbachev was in power.

What is Stalin's system? There is no unified definition. Generally speaking, politically, one party is in power, individual is autocratic and lacks democracy; Economically: highly centralized planned economy; Culturally, it has a high monopoly on ideology and pursues the oneness of cultural development. This system was slightly different in Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev and even Gorbachev, but it did not exceed the above framework on the whole.

Stalin system played a positive role in the political, economic and cultural development of the Soviet Union, but it also caused great harm to all aspects, including the field of ethnic relations. What are the main aspects of the system's harm to ethnic relations?

First, the prominent feature of the highly centralized central system is centralization, while the Soviet Union envisioned by Lenin is decentralized. Although Stalin formally strengthened the federalism with ethnic characteristics, such as dividing the Soviet Union into several countries that joined the * * * and autonomous countries and countries. In fact, these national autonomous entities exist in name only, and the main body of the alliance does not feel what rights the Constitution gives them, but the leaders of the main body of the alliance see a huge gap between reality and regulations. Not satisfied with their own situation, they quoted Lenin's words from time to time to pursue "national equality" and demanded power from the central authorities. Because the leaders of the Central Committee of the African Union did violate the legal principle, they had to rely on their power to put pressure on the leaders of * * * and China, and even severely punish their opponents, so that the relationship between * * * and China and the Central Committee was always in a "spring" state: the Central Committee was tough and the Central Committee was softer; As soon as the central authorities let go, the Republic of China sought secession. During the existence of the Soviet Union, this struggle between centralization and decentralization, or between control and anti-control, always existed. Under certain conditions, long-term accumulated discontent may erupt like a volcano.

Second, the biggest drawback of a highly centralized system is the lack of democracy and personal power. Due to excessive power and lack of checks and balances, Soviet leaders made many mistakes in ethnic relations, some of which were quite serious, which seems incredible today. Here are some key points:

-Taking a "one-size-fits-all" approach in agricultural collectivization regardless of the characteristics of ethnic areas has seriously damaged agriculture and animal husbandry in ethnic areas, causing famine, and millions of ethnic minorities died or were forced to emigrate. The population of Kazakhstan 1929 was about 5 million, which actually decreased by 1933. The livestock production there has not recovered to the level of 19 1953. Ukraine also lost nearly 3 million people in the famine.

-The massive cleansing campaign and the indiscriminate killing of innocent people in the 1930s severely devastated ethnic cadres, ethnic intellectuals and ordinary people. From 1937 to 1938, the first secretary of the Central Committee of Ukraine, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan and Armenia was executed. Ha * * * All the prison guards were killed. 1937 in may, 86% of the 644 delegates attending the 10th congress in communist party were arrested, exiled or imprisoned shortly after the meeting. A large number of national intellectuals and ordinary people were arrested and killed. Later, it was found out that most of the so-called "counter-revolutionary" incidents were unjust, false and wrong cases.

-1937 ~ 1944, about 4.4 million ethnic minorities involving more than 20 nationalities moved from their ancestral homes to Central Asia and Siberia, of which 1 1 ethnic minorities were moved. The relocation was carried out in a short time, and people were unprepared. During the relocation, many people died of illness. In his new residence, he was treated unfairly by "exiles". This collective punishment of the country is shocking. During Khrushchev and Brezhnev, people who were forced to move were rehabilitated one after another, but Crimean Tatars, Germans and Mescht Turks were still not allowed to return to their original places of residence. Later, when Gorbachev was in power, it was mainly these people who were not allowed to return to China.

-foreign expansion leaves behind future troubles. This means that in 1939, Stalin and Hitler secretly divided their spheres of influence and transferred the three Baltic countries and part of Moldova to the Soviet Union by force. Those who were dissatisfied with the local ethnic groups were exiled or driven abroad, and hundreds of thousands of victims were involved. In the following decades, the three Baltic countries always struggled for independence from the Soviet Union, which made Soviet leaders feel uneasy. The root of the Soviet Union's move lies in Stalin's "imperial thought". He believes that all the territories occupied by the Russian empire should be Soviet territory, and seizing these places is to restore the "reasonable border" of the Soviet Union. It is no accident that the three Baltic countries took the lead in demanding independence during Gorbachev's time.

-Launching an anti-Semitic movement under the pretext of "opposing cosmopolitanism" and "the doctor incident". After World War II, the Soviet authorities arrested members of the Soviet Anti-Fascist Committee on the pretext that Soviet Jews participated in the "counter-revolutionary activities" of international Jewish organizations. The post-anti-Semitic movement expanded to prohibit Jews from working in the diplomatic and judicial departments and close Jewish theaters, schools and newspapers. From 65438 to 0952, Stalin listened to false accusations and arrested a large number of Jewish doctors for "murdering leaders", and more people were expelled from hospitals, scientific research institutions and universities. These are all unjust, false and wrong cases. After Stalin died, he was quickly rehabilitated.

There are many examples of Stalin's system hurting ethnic relations. These problems mainly occurred in Stalin's period, and Khrushchev and Brezhnev's period were not without them, but the number was obviously reduced and the nature was not so serious. The impact of events that hurt ethnic relations has gone far beyond the ethnic issue itself, because the above events alone cannot disintegrate the Soviet Union. The problem is that people see the harmfulness of authoritarian system through these events, which leads to doubts about the state system and the leadership of the Soviet Union. If people can't or dare not say this idea at the time of the incident, then in the following years, when people's cultural and educational level is improved and their concept of democracy and human rights is enhanced, these incredible problems will be questioned, and I hope this phenomenon will not happen again. This is why when Khrushchev and Gorbachev criticize Stalin's "tyranny", many people will respond, and when someone takes these incidents as an example and demands the reform of the system that made them, it is easy to arouse some people's voices.

The highly centralized planned economy model under Stalin's system actually deprived the country as the main body of the alliance of the rights it should enjoy, which were promised to them when the Soviet Union was founded. The Central Committee of the Alliance controls the vast majority of enterprises and assets in * * * and China through the Alliance Department and its directly managed Alliance Department. During Stalin's period, enterprises affiliated to the Alliance Department accounted for 89% of the total industrial output value of the whole Soviet Union, while enterprises affiliated to the Ministry of * * * and the State Council only accounted for 1 1%. During Khrushchev's period, 97% of enterprises were owned by the Alliance Department and the Alliance-* * and the State Council, and 3% were owned by the Alliance Department and the State Council. During the Brezhnev period, 89% of enterprises were owned by the Union Department and the Union-* * and the State Council, and 6% were owned by the Union Department and the State Council [1]. In other words, the amount of disposable assets in the United States is extremely limited, and even the construction of an ordinary school must be approved by the relevant departments of the Central Committee of the African Union. The arrangement of production plan and the sale of products are completely controlled by the central government, and the Republic of China has no right to ask. However, the Republic of China has to bear the social problems and environmental pollution caused by various enterprise construction. * * * The Republic of China has built a large number of enterprises in this country, which has not benefited the local people. Turkmenistan's President Niyazov once said: "Our country has gained a lot in the Soviet Union, first of all, education, but Turkmenistan has never been a member of Soviet socialism, nor is it an equal member of all countries. Whatever orders are given to us, we must carry them out. In order to meet the ideological needs and solve the problems of the central government, there has been a deliberate harm to the national interests, and Turkmenistan cannot take the initiative to solve any problems independently. We exploit oil and natural gas, but no one in China knows, and it is impossible to know where and at what price these products are sold. The same is true of cotton. All we got was instructions to deliver the goods by address, and we didn't even have any right to ask questions on this topic. These actually determine that all sectors of Turkmenistan's economy should directly obey the central government, and the Republic can't take any profits and distribution from exporting domestic raw materials, but it has strict requirements for us when it comes to taxation. This is naked discrimination. In addition, it is difficult to make other evaluations of this system. " [2] This passage can basically express the dissatisfaction of many countries with Stalin's economic system at that time.

Another consequence of this system is that the economy is closed and divorced from the development track of world economic integration, which makes the economy unable to keep up with the pace of world development and gradually loses its vitality, and the country's development is gradually slow or even stagnant. The supply of goods under the planned system is always in a state of tight distribution, and people's lives cannot be greatly improved. This also makes some countries, especially some countries with good economic foundation, such as Baltic countries, feel that they can't get great development under the Soviet system, so they try their best to get rid of the existing system and find a new way out. This is why 1989 Gorbachev put forward the idea of decentralization, and the three countries took the lead in demanding economic sovereignty. Serious problems in the economic system made the Soviet Union lose its cohesion with some countries. If the important condition for the establishment of the Soviet Union in the 1920s was that the participating countries sought common development and were afraid of foreign attacks in order to survive, then by the 1990s, some countries had lost confidence in the common economic development, were not afraid of the influence on the West, and even tried their best to move closer to it and join the group of countries with developed economies. This change is inseparable from the economic backwardness caused by Stalin system, so it can be said that Stalin system laid the foundation for the disintegration of the Soviet Union.

The Stalin system's high monopoly on ideology and the policy of cultural simplification also hurt national feelings. The cultural policy from Stalin to Brezhnev is basically centered on Russia and full of chauvinism in Great Russia. For example, when expounding history, we must take Russia as the center and describe Russia's aggression and expansion in those years as the "progress" and "demand" of ethnic minorities and the "voluntary merger" of ethnic minorities. Russian generals who have made great contributions to the expansion are regarded as "heroes", while when ethnic minorities praise their anti-Russian heroes, they are said to be "manifestations of nationalism". Ethnic minorities have known Pushkin and Tolstoy since childhood, but they don't know their own cultural philosophers. In fact, there are many ethnic minorities whose history is much longer than that of Russia, and there are also many writers and poets. Another example is the promotion of Russian by administrative means, which also hurts the feelings of ethnic minorities. If the cultural level of ethnic minorities is not high and the ranks of intellectuals are not formed, this practice will not be criticized by many people. By the 1980s, illiteracy among ethnic minorities had been completely eliminated, and a contingent of ethnic intellectuals had been formed. This cultural policy is bound to conflict with the trend of national self-awareness. We should not underestimate the mistakes made by Su in the spiritual field, because this is also a manifestation of ethnic inequality and a dissension in a multi-ethnic family. In fact, some intellectuals and even leaders of the Democratic People's Republic raised objections to the Soviet Union's actions, such as Shelest, First Secretary of the Ukrainian Central Committee, and Muz Alvana Ze, First Secretary of the Georgian Central Committee. They were all dismissed because they disagreed with some policies of the Soviet Central Committee, and many subordinates were implicated. Some people, such as Ukrainian writer Ivan Kuba, were arrested and imprisoned for opposing Soviet chauvinism. As for Khrushchev and Brezhnev's theory of "Soviet people-people's new history * * *", it is a theory to accelerate the assimilation of Russians by the people of all ethnic groups in the Soviet Union. Since Stalin, Su * * * has always pointed the finger against nationalism at ethnic minorities, and even rarely mentioned the chauvinism against Great Russia, which aroused the dissatisfaction of ethnic minorities and stimulated the growth of national nationalism. When talking about the role of racial nationalism, brzezinski wrote: "The resentment against non-Russians is reflected in two aspects: 1. Vertically, it is against the central rule of Moscow's great Russians; 2. Horizontally, this is an open conflict of interest between non-Russian nationalities. " All these nationalist demands and actions have a common desire: to weaken and eventually cut off the ties imposed on them by the big Russians in Moscow. " [3]

As mentioned above, the Stalin system has caused serious damage to ethnic relations. However, the problem is that successive Soviet leaders, from Stalin to Gorbachev, failed to see this, and still comforted themselves, saying that the ethnic problems in the Soviet Union have been solved, even once and for all, and that ethnic problems are "smooth" areas. The consequence of this way of looking at the problem is that people often report good news instead of bad news in ethnic relations and try their best to cover up various ethnic problems that actually exist. Once it can't be covered up, it will be handled in a contradictory way, which will lead to the accumulation or improper handling of a large number of ethnic problems and form a bitter hatred.

What happened to Gorbachev?

Gorbachev came to power in the Soviet Union in 1985, and the Soviet Union disintegrated at the end of 199 1. During Gorbachev's administration, the Soviet Union disintegrated. Only in this way, Gorbachev was at fault in the disintegration of the Soviet Union. So, what's the matter?

First of all, he ignored or didn't understand the seriousness of ethnic problems in the Soviet Union. 1985, the Soviet Union he inherited was already a crisis-ridden country. Gorbachev saw the stagnation of economy and the lack of democracy in politics and put forward the idea of reform. But he just didn't pay attention to ethnic issues, because he thought that the ethnic field at that time was "smooth sailing". It was not until 1990 that Gorbachev, the 28th Congress of the Soviet Union, admitted that "we didn't realize the significance of this problem (referring to ethnic issues-the author's note) and didn't see the dangers contained in it in time" [4]. It is precisely because we are not aware of the danger of ethnic problems that when serious ethnic problems come, "we are unprepared for what happened" [5]. Inadequate ideological preparation led to Gorbachev's chaotic pace in dealing with ethnic issues, first left and then right.

Secondly, due to the mistakes of political reform, ethnic relations involve three aspects. First, when Gorbachev put forward slogans such as "opening up" and "leaving no historical blank spots", he did not expect that this would involve complicated historical grievances. It was after this slogan was put forward that ethnic problems suddenly emerged, which caught Gorbachev off guard. Second, from the pluralism of public opinion to the "political pluralism" and finally to the multi-party system, the Soviet Union lost its previous position and caused serious damage to ethnic relations, which I will talk about below. Third, in the case of unstable political situation, it is proposed to change the relationship between the alliance and the countries that have joined the * * *, and delegate power to the countries that have joined the * * *, which leads to the loss of control of power and the gradual suspension of the alliance center. This problem happened at the same time as the Soviet Union lost its leadership.

Third, it is related to the failure of the economy. Gorbachev's six-year reform did not change the economic stagnation of the Soviet Union, but led the country to the brink of economic collapse. People's living standards have fallen sharply, and countries have lost confidence in Gorbachev's strategy of governing the country and are trying to find another way.

Fourth, it is related to the changes in the Soviet Union, which is the most important point. When studying the reasons for the disintegration of the Soviet Union, we can't help mentioning the Soviet Union, because it has a very close relationship with the national process of the Soviet Union. It can be said that without the Soviet Union, there would be no Soviet Union. The achievements of Soviet ethnic work are related to the Soviet Union, and the problems are also related to the Soviet Union. When the Soviet Union is strong and stable, there will be fewer ethnic problems. On the contrary, ethnic issues are more complicated. During Gorbachev's period, with the deepening of political reform, the spearhead of the reform was directed at the Soviet Union, especially after the legal status of the Soviet Union stipulated in Article 6 of the Constitution was abolished, there were more and more ethnic problems in the Soviet Union, and the nature of ethnic problems also changed from general ethnic contradictions to seeking separation. As the Soviet Union's control over joining the Republic weakened or lost its dominant position in the Republic, the momentum of ethnic separation became more and more fierce. After the "8. 19 incident", Gorbachev announced the disintegration of the Soviet Union, so the unified Soviet Union did not exist and the disintegration of the Soviet Union was inevitable.

Why is the Soviet Union so closely related to the nation? This is related to the concentration of Soviet power in the hands of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is the core of the Soviet political system, nominally a political party, but actually a political organization, and an organization whose vertical leadership radiates across the country. The political, economic and military power of the country is controlled by the Soviet Union and exercised through organizations at all levels. The Soviet Union is like a bond that binds all participating countries together. When the Soviet Union was founded, because of the existence of United Russia, some countries had to participate even if they didn't want to. We say that there are three conditions for the establishment of the Soviet Union: the need to survive under the pressure of hostile forces; The need to seek economic difficulties; There is a unified producer. If Gorbachev comes to power and the first two conditions are almost lost because of Stalin's institutional mistakes, then a unified Soviet Union still exists. Although it has its own problems. Gorbachev's fatal blow to the Soviet Union was tantamount to cutting off the last link that maintained the Soviet Union's existence. For the Soviet Union, a country with complex ethnic relations and federal structure, it needs a bond to maintain national unity and a force to deter ethnic separatist forces. All countries in the world are no exception. Gorbachev relaxed or even abandoned the ties with the Soviet Union before he found the ties to maintain national unity, which led to the emergence of "vassals" and the loss of state power, which was one of the important reasons for the disintegration of the Soviet Union.

On the issue of external influence

The disintegration of the Soviet Union has obvious external influence. No matter in the protests of Crimean Tatars, or in the activities of Baltic countries leaving the Soviet Union, there are western forces involved. Before Ukraine's independence, the United States announced that it could consider recognition. But this is only one side of the problem. On the other hand, the rapid development of the western economy has played an attractive role in the Soviet Union. This point has been mentioned above, so I won't repeat it.

Here I want to talk about the issue of "peaceful evolution".

Western countries have always opposed the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union has always opposed the United States. As a federal country, the Soviet Union disintegrated and the United States did not, indicating that the problem lies at home. At this point, I want to quote a passage that brzezinski said in 197 1. In his article entitled "The Political Significance of Ethnic Issues in the Soviet Union" [6], he wrote that a big country like the Soviet Union cannot disintegrate the Soviet Union by external forces alone, and separatism can only be realized in the Soviet Union if domestic crises are combined with international disasters. What he said about the domestic crisis refers to: the paralysis of the Soviet leadership, the division of the upper class of society, the chaos of right and wrong, ideological corruption, indecision and chaos, and economic stagnation. Foreign invasion refers to the great collapse caused by international conflicts and is a challenge to the whole Soviet Union. After Gorbachev came to power, international conflicts did not occur, but the domestic situation in the Soviet Union changed as brzezinski imagined. As he predicted, the Soviet Union disintegrated under the action of civil strife. It seems that the problem is not external, but yourself. External cause is the condition and internal cause is the foundation. The disintegration of the Soviet Union also proved this truth.

An answer to a question

Here I also want to answer a question that everyone often asks: Why did the Soviet Union disintegrate so easily, and it was divided into 15 only according to the number of alliance subjects, that is, the number of countries that the United States joined? The number of nationalities in the Soviet Union is not only 15, but more than 100. Coincidentally, the disintegration of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia is also very similar.

It should be said that the reasons for the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia are different, but one thing is the same, that is, they are all federalism characterized by nationalities. The Soviet Union was first established, and the latter two countries were imitations of the Soviet Union.

Federalism with national characteristics has the following characteristics: the main body of the Federation is the participating countries: 1. Except for foreign affairs and national defense, it basically has all the management institutions necessary as an independent country; 2. It has become a common practice to form a leading group dominated by local ethnic groups, and it is stipulated by law; 3. The main ethnic group in the federal subject has formed the concept that the national autonomous entity named after this ethnic group is regarded as "home country", and other ethnic groups living here are regarded as "foreign ethnic groups", and various means have been taken to strengthen the status of the main ethnic group; 4. Influenced by the demonstration effect, some "sub-subjects" in the federal subject also seek to enjoy the same special status and establish their own country, which leads to ethnic contradictions and conflicts from time to time. The above points determine that once the conditions of independence are met, the federal subject will soon be independent, because the ready-made institutional setup, the composition of the leading group, especially the national consciousness of the subject nation, provide great convenience. At the same time, in order to win independence, the leading groups mainly composed of the main ethnic groups often play the role of organization and promotion, which can be seen very clearly from the performance of some leaders who joined the Soviet Union when the Soviet Union disintegrated.

The adoption of this federalism by the Soviet Union was a product under certain conditions. At that time, the limitations of this federalism were not seen. After a long time, people will find that this form of federalism is prone to ethnic conflicts such as immigration, language and the use of cadres. More importantly, the problem of seeking separation will occur from time to time. This form of federalism objectively strengthens the concept of the state, so that citizens of all ethnic groups living in a certain federal subject do not really enjoy equal rights. The Soviet Union can exist for more than 70 years, mainly because there is a unified production party. And this condition is not immutable. Once Gorbachev's situation happened, disintegration really happened. Then, why can China become independent when it joins the Republic of * * *, but not other national autonomous entities? This is due to the Soviet Constitution. According to the Constitution of the Soviet Union, a country that joins the Republic of * * * is a "union subject" with sovereignty and can freely withdraw, while other national autonomous entities do not have this right. This clause in the Soviet Constitution is even more free to join the United States than the American Constitution. Joining the Republic of China only uses this clause to disintegrate freely and legally without any international interference. The same is true of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. The civil war in Yugoslavia and Bosnia and Herzegovina was intervened by the international community, which was related to the fact that none of the warring parties was a federal subject. On the contrary, Western countries used force to ensure the reunification of Bosnia and Herzegovina as a federal entity. The two autonomous republics of the former Soviet Union, Tatar and Chechnya, failed to seek independence from the Soviet Union, and the Soviet Union failed to become independent when it disintegrated because it was not the main body of the alliance. In fact, Tatarstan has surpassed some independent countries in population and economic strength. Therefore, when we deeply discuss the reasons for the disintegration of the Soviet Union, we should also consider whether federalism with national characteristics is conducive to maintaining the unity of multi-ethnic countries. This move is not to investigate the responsibility, but to summarize the history and warn future generations. It is precisely because of these shortcomings of federalism characterized by nationalities that newly independent countries do not adopt this national system. The Russian Federation, unable to change its system due to historical reasons, has also adopted the Constitution and other laws and regulations to overcome the weakness of federalism with national characteristics, strengthen the "integrity of the Russian Federation" and "equality of citizens", weaken national consciousness and enhance national consciousness, so as to safeguard national unity. This shows from another side that the national system will also play a certain role in safeguarding national unity.