Soviet Union 1991

Third update

The British viewers who followed BBC TV tonight saw such an interesting scene. TV host Marvin, who originally wanted to embarrass the Soviet Union's external affairs, was turned red-faced and speechless by the other party's rebuttal. And Shevardnadze always used a non-hurried tone to refute the other party, just like an author who has seized the initiative and can refute the other party unscrupulously.

Perhaps as Shevardnadze said to the audience when he first came on stage, "I just want to chat with you casually. As for other political issues, I am also very happy to provide answers within my ability. I heard that BBC presenters are very sharp in their questioning.”

Originally, everyone was expecting to see a bureaucrat from a dictatorial empire being refuted by a righteous British broadcaster and was speechless. Unexpectedly, in the end, it turned into a TV host from a democratic country being refuted by a bureaucracy from a dictatorship. Be true to your word. This is different from the script that was originally agreed upon.

And why are they clearly listing the shortcomings of a dictatorial state? Why are both parties talking at length about how the British government is anti-human rights? Aren’t we the first country to advertise freedom and equality?

Of course, everyone knows that the so-called human rights are just that. British democracy is a joke. I am a bourgeois free world. When we discuss equality, black slaves and other people of color had better shut up.

"We don't have much time. Now I want to ask one last question." Marvin wiped the sweat from his forehead. He didn't know whether it was because he was impatient or because the studio was too hot. And at this time, he was almost speechless by Shevardnadze's refutation. No matter how he listed the black history of the Soviet Union, Shevardnadze could always refute more of the unsightly history of Britain.

"Since your systems and theories are much more advanced than ours, why is the living standard of your people so different from that of the United Kingdom and the United States? You must know that after 1989, there were long queues to buy bread in the Soviet Union. Can you create The most unique heavy industry system in the world can’t solve people’s living problems?”

"Isn't it strange? Back then, when the economy was at its most difficult, the British would rather pour milk into the Thames than share it with the poor. We think it's unbelievable, but you think this kind of thing is very common." Shevardnadze asked the other party. "If we talk about living standards, the Soviet Union had a welfare system that made the entire Western society improve during the 1970s and 1980s."

At this point, everyone became quiet. Many people never thought about it when they were enjoying government benefits. Why did the capitalists who controlled poor workers with low wages in the early 20th century transform into benevolent philanthropists in just a few decades?

"I can even say without shame that the current welfare society in the West is entirely due to the influence of the Soviet Union. Please also think about what Che Guevara said when you insult our dictatorship, our lack of freedom, and our lack of democracy. Words. They will build schools and hospitals for you, and raise your wages, not because of their conscience or because they have become good people."

The high welfare system and workers' rights promoted by Western countries were not a sudden discovery of conscience by capitalists, nor were they the result of so-called liberal democratic politics. Rather, they were the result of the high welfare system of the Soviet Union, the communist revolution that was raging around the world, and the labor movement. Produce the results of the struggle.

As soon as Shevardnadze finished speaking, there was a burst of applause in the studio. This was the recognition of what he said by the staff, who received low wages every day that were just enough for food and clothing. The words of the Soviet Foreign Minister were deeply felt by the working-class people who were rushing through crowded subways and burdened with heavy loans. No one expected that it would be an official from a socialist country who finally spoke for the British people and expressed their feelings.

Host Marvin looked dejected. His original plan to embarrass Shevardnadze had completely aborted. And his performance on TV tonight will be engraved in the minds of the people. But he still maintained the pride of a British gentleman at this time, shook hands with Shevardnadze and said, "It is very pleasant to communicate with you, Minister Shevardnadze."

Shevardnadze held the opponent's warm and thick hand and said with the same smile, "It should be said that this was a pleasant debate. I think the performance of host Marvin still has a lot of room for improvement. I also hope that next time You can perform at a higher level for once.”

Shevardnadze's subtext was that I'm sorry that you are a weakling with a combat power of five in front of me. Of course, Marvin heard the sarcasm and disdain in the Soviet official's tone. He just forced a smile towards the other party. Today's Soviet Union is no longer the rough Soviet Union that was defeated in the United Nations' shoe knocking incident and kitchen debate. In Marvin's eyes, these leaders of the Red Empire have become cunning and hypocritical, with an evil heart hidden under the polite cover.

The next day, Shevardnadze's photo during the interview appeared in newspapers on the streets of London. The British media believed that this was a new debate between the East and the West in terms of ideology. It was also the peak of the debate after the kitchen debate in 1959. However, unlike Khrushchev who praised the communist system, Shevardnadze perfectly used the differences in Britain's society and system to perfectly set off the advantages of the Soviet Union. This incident was also called a TV debate by the media, which was completely comparable to the kitchen debate.

This time everyone thought that Shevardnadze of the Soviet Union won the debate. Marvin's performance on TV was like a middle-aged man with prostate problems staring at a urinal in a daze. Other TV hosts bluntly declared. I have never seen such a low-level British debater.

The trip to the UK will end here. In Yanayev's view, no matter how strong Britain wants to appear, it cannot cover up the slow pace of a declining empire in its twilight years. A naval fleet that robs Peter to pay Paul, an old Buddha who controls the government, a crown prince who has been waiting for more than 40 years but cannot succeed to the throne, a wall-hanging master, a group of powerful countries that are as fierce as wolves, and a bunch of revolutionary parties in Ireland that are always splitting up... History always repeats itself in a surprising way...

Yanayev stood at the door of the plane and waved goodbye to everyone. This visit to the UK ended successfully. Yanayev reached a huge commodity trade order with this empire on which the sun never sets, and there were some secret transactions that only the leaders of both sides knew about and could not tell. In short, except for some minor frictions in private, this visit was a perfect ending.

"Goodbye, Great Britain."

Facing the slowly sinking sunset on the horizon, Yanayev waved and said goodbye softly. (To be continued.)