We don’t want a single inch of someone else’s land. But we will not give up our land, not a single inch of our land, to anyone.

Joseph Stalin

The Cold War is a state of contradiction between the two dominant world systems: capitalism and socialism. Socialism was represented by the USSR, and capitalism, in this way, by the USA and Great Britain. Today it is popular to say that the Cold War is a confrontation at the USSR-USA level, but they forget to say that the speech of British Prime Minister Churchill led to the formal declaration of war.

Causes of the war

In 1945, contradictions began to appear between the USSR and other participants in the anti-Hitler coalition. It was clear that Germany had lost the war, and now the main question was the post-war structure of the world. Here everyone tried to pull the blanket in their direction, to take a leading position relative to other countries. The main contradictions lay in European countries: Stalin wanted to subordinate them to the Soviet system, and the capitalists sought to prevent the Soviet state from entering Europe.

The causes of the Cold War are as follows:

• Social. Uniting the country in the face of a new enemy.
• Economic. The struggle for markets and resources. The desire to weaken the economic power of the enemy.
• Military. An arms race in case of a new open war.
• Ideological. The enemy society is presented exclusively in negative connotations. The struggle of two ideologies.

The active stage of the confrontation between the two systems begins with the US atomic bombing of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If we consider this bombing in isolation, it is illogical - the war has been won, Japan is not a competitor. Why bomb cities, and even with such weapons? But if we consider the end of the Second World War and the beginning of the Cold War, then the goal of bombing is to show a potential enemy one’s strength, and to show who should be in charge in the world. And the factor of nuclear weapons was very important in the future. After all, the USSR only had an atomic bomb in 1949...

Beginning of the war

If we briefly consider the Cold War, its beginning today is associated exclusively with Churchill’s speech. That is why they say that the beginning of the Cold War is March 5, 1946.

Churchill's speech March 5, 1946

In fact, Truman (US President) gave a more specific speech, from which it became clear to everyone that the Cold War had begun. And Churchill’s speech (it’s not difficult to find and read on the Internet today) was superficial. It talked a lot about the Iron Curtain, but not a word about the Cold War.

Interview with Stalin from February 10, 1946

On February 10, 1946, the Pravda newspaper published an interview with Stalin. Today this newspaper is very difficult to find, but this interview was very interesting. In it, Stalin said the following: “Capitalism always gives rise to crises and conflicts. This always creates a threat of war, which is a threat to the USSR. Therefore, we must restore the Soviet economy at an accelerated pace. We must give priority to heavy industry over consumer goods."

This speech of Stalin turned around and it was on it that all Western leaders relied on the desire of the USSR to start a war. But, as you can see, in this speech by Stalin there was not even a hint of the militaristic expansion of the Soviet state.

The real start of the war

To say that the beginning of the Cold War is connected with Churchill's speech is a little illogical. The fact is that at the time of 1946 it was simply the former Prime Minister of Great Britain. It turns out to be a kind of theater of the absurd - the war between the USSR and the USA is officially started by the former Prime Minister of England. In reality, everything was different, and Churchill’s speech was just a convenient excuse, which was later advantageous to write off everything on.

The real beginning of the Cold War should be dated back to at least 1944, when it was already clear that Germany was doomed to defeat, and all the allies pulled the blanket over themselves, realizing that it was very important to gain dominance over the post-war world. If we try to draw a more precise line for the beginning of the war, then the first serious disagreements on the topic of “how to live further” between the allies occurred at the Tehran Conference.

Specifics of war

To properly understand the processes that took place during the Cold War, you need to understand what this war was like in history. Today they are increasingly saying that it was actually the Third World War. And this is a huge mistake. The fact is that all the wars of mankind that happened before, including the Napoleonic Wars and World Wars 2, were warriors of the capitalist world for the rights to dominate a certain region. The Cold War was the first global war in which there was a confrontation between two systems: capitalist and socialist. Here it may be objected to me that in the history of mankind there have been wars where the cornerstone was not capital, but religion: Christianity against Islam and Islam against Christianity. This objection is partly true, but only out of happiness. The fact is that any religious conflicts cover only part of the population and part of the world, while the global cold war has covered the whole world. All countries of the world could be clearly divided into 2 main groups:

1. Socialist. They recognized the dominance of the USSR and received funding from Moscow.
2. Capitalist. They recognized US dominance and received funding from Washington.

There were also “uncertain” ones. There were few such countries, but they existed. Their main specificity was that outwardly they could not decide which camp to join, so they received funding from two sources: from Moscow and Washington.

Who started the war

One of the problems of the Cold War is the question of who started it. Indeed, there is no army here that crosses the border of another state and thereby declares war. Today you can blame everything on the USSR and say that it was Stalin who started the war. But there is a problem with the evidence base for this hypothesis. I will not help our “partners” and look for what motives the USSR might have had for the war, but I will give facts why Stalin did not need the aggravation of relations (at least not directly in 1946):

• Nuclear weapon. The USA introduced it in 1945, and the USSR in 1949. You can imagine that the ultra-calculating Stalin wanted to worsen relations with the United States when the enemy had a trump card up his sleeve - nuclear weapons. At the same time, let me remind you, there was also a plan for the atomic bombing of the largest cities of the USSR.
• Economy. The USA and Great Britain, by and large, made money from the Second World War, so they did not have economic problems. The USSR is a different matter. The country needed to restore its economy. By the way, the USA had 50% of the world GNP in 1945.

The facts show that in 1944-1946 the USSR was not ready to start a war. And Churchill’s speech, which formally began the Cold War, was not delivered in Moscow, and not at its suggestion. But on the other hand, both opposing camps were extremely interested in such a war.

Back on September 4, 1945, the United States adopted “Memorandum 329,” which developed a plan for the atomic bombing of Moscow and Leningrad. In my opinion, this is the best proof of who wanted war and aggravation of relations.

Goals

Any war has goals, and it is surprising that most of our historians do not even try to determine the goals of the Cold War. On the one hand, this is justified by the fact that the USSR had only one goal - the expansion and strengthening of socialism by any means. But Western countries were more inventive. They sought not only to spread their global influence, but also to deal spiritual blows to the USSR. And this continues to this day. The following US goals in the war can be identified in terms of historical and psychological impact:

1. Substitute concepts at the historical level. Note that under the influence of these ideas, today all historical figures of Russia who bowed to Western countries are presented as ideal rulers. At the same time, everyone who advocated the rise of Russia is presented as tyrants, despots and fanatics.
2. Development of an inferiority complex among Soviet people. They were always trying to prove to us that we were somehow different, that we were to blame for all the problems of humanity, and so on. Largely because of this, people so easily accepted the collapse of the USSR and the problems of the 90s - it was “payback” for our inferiority, but in fact, the enemy simply achieved the goal in the war.
3. Denigration of history. This stage continues to this day. If you study Western materials, then our entire history (literally all of it) is presented as one continuous violence.

There are, of course, pages of history with which our country can be reproached, but most of the stories are just made up. Moreover, liberals and Western historians for some reason forget that it was not Russia that colonized the whole world, it was not Russia that destroyed the indigenous population of America, it was not Russia that shot Indians from cannons, tying 20 people in a row to save cannonballs, it was not Russia that exploited Africa. There are thousands of such examples, because every country in history has unpleasant stories. Therefore, if you really want to delve into the bad events of our history, please do not forget that Western countries have no less such stories.

Stages of the war

The stages of the Cold War are one of the most controversial issues, since it is very difficult to gradate them. However, I can suggest dividing this war into 8 key stages:

• Preparatory (193-1945). The world war was still going on and formally the “allies” acted as a united front, but there were already differences and everyone began to fight for post-war world domination.
• Beginning (1945-1949). The time of complete US hegemony, when the Americans managed to make the dollar the single world currency and the country’s position was strengthened in almost all regions except those in which the USSR army was located.
• Rise (1949-1953). Key factors of 1949 that make it possible to single out this year as a key one: 1 - the creation of atomic weapons in the USSR, 2 - the economy of the USSR is reaching the levels of 1940. After this, active confrontation began, when the United States could no longer talk to the USSR from a position of strength.
• First discharge (1953-1956). The key event was the death of Stalin, after which the beginning of a new course was announced - a policy of peaceful coexistence.
• A new round of crisis (1956-1970). Events in Hungary led to a new round of tension that lasted almost 15 years, which included the Cuban missile crisis.
• Second discharge (1971-1976). This stage of the Cold War, in short, is associated with the beginning of the work of the commission to relieve tension in Europe, and with the signing of the Final Act in Helsinki.
• Third crisis (1977-1985). A new round when the Cold War between the USSR and the USA reached its climax. The main point of confrontation is Afghanistan. In terms of military development, the country staged a “wild” arms race.
• End of the war (1985-1988). The end of the Cold War occurred in 1988, when it became clear that the “new political thinking” in the USSR was ending the war and so far only de facto recognized the American victory.

These are the main stages of the Cold War. As a result, socialism and communism lost to capitalism, since the moral and psychological influence of the United States, which was openly directed at the leadership of the CPSU, achieved its goal: the party leadership began to put its personal interests and benefits above socialist foundations.

Forms

The confrontation between the two ideologies began back in 1945. Gradually, this confrontation spread to all spheres of public life.

Military confrontation

The main military confrontation of the Cold War era is the struggle of two blocs. On April 4, 1949, NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) was created. NATO includes the USA, Canada, England, France, Italy and a number of small countries. In response, on May 14, 1955, the Warsaw Pact Organization was created. Thus, a clear confrontation between the two systems emerged. But again it should be noted that the first step was taken by Western countries, which organized NATO 6 years earlier than the Warsaw Pact.

The main confrontation, which we have already partially discussed, is atomic weapons. In 1945, these weapons appeared in the United States. Moreover, America developed a plan to launch nuclear strikes on the 20 largest cities of the USSR, using 192 bombs. This forced the USSR to do even the impossible to create its own atomic bomb, the first successful tests of which took place in August 1949. Subsequently, all this resulted in an arms race on a huge scale.

Economic confrontation

In 1947, the United States developed the Marshall Plan. According to this plan, the United States provided financial assistance to all countries that suffered during the war. But in this regard there was one limitation - only those countries that shared the political interests and goals of the United States received assistance. In response to this, the USSR begins to provide assistance in reconstruction after the war to countries that have chosen the path of socialism. Based on these approaches, 2 economic blocks were created:

• Western European Union (WEU) in 1948.
• Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) in January 1949. In addition to the USSR, the organization included: Czechoslovakia, Romania, Poland, Hungary and Bulgaria.

Despite the formation of alliances, the essence did not change: ZEV helped with US money, and CMEA helped with USSR money. The rest of the countries only consumed.

In the economic confrontation with the USA, Stalin took two steps that had an extremely negative impact on the American economy: on March 1, 1950, the USSR moved away from calculating the ruble in dollars (as was the case throughout the world) to gold backing, and in April 1952, the USSR, China and Eastern European countries are creating a trade zone alternative to the dollar. This trade zone did not use the dollar at all, which means the capitalist world, which previously owned 100% of the world market, lost at least 1/3 of this market. All this happened against the backdrop of the “economic miracle of the USSR.” Western experts said that the USSR would be able to reach the 1940 level after the war only by 1971, but in reality this happened already in 1949.

Crises

Cold War crises

Event	date
	1948
Vietnam War	1946-1954
	1950-1953
	1946-1949
	1948-1949
	1956
	Mid 50's - mid 60's
	Mid 60's
War in Afghanistan

These are the main crises of the Cold War, but there were others, less significant. Next, we will briefly consider what the essence of these crises was and what consequences they led to the world.

Military conflicts

In our country, many people do not take the Cold War seriously. We have in our minds the understanding that war is “checkers drawn,” weapons in hand and in the trenches. But the Cold War was different, although even it was not without regional conflicts, some of which were extremely difficult. The main conflicts of those times:

• The split of Germany. Education of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic.
• Vietnam War (1946-1954). Led to the division of the country.
• Korean War (1950-1953). Led to the division of the country.

Berlin crisis of 1948

To properly understand the essence of the Berlin crisis of 1948, you should study the map.

Germany was divided into 2 parts: western and eastern. Berlin was also in the zone of influence, but the city itself was located deep in the eastern lands, that is, in the territory controlled by the USSR. In an effort to put pressure on West Berlin, the Soviet leadership organized its blockade. This was a response to the recognition of Taiwan and its acceptance into the UN.

England and France organized an air corridor, supplying the residents of West Berlin with everything they needed. Therefore, the blockade failed and the crisis itself began to slow down. Realizing that the blockade was leading nowhere, the Soviet leadership lifted it, normalizing life in Berlin.

The continuation of the crisis was the creation of two states in Germany. In 1949, the western states were transformed into the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG). In response, the German Democratic Republic (GDR) was created in the eastern states. It is these events that should be considered the final split of Europe into 2 opposing camps - West and East.

Revolution in China

In 1946, civil war began in China. The communist bloc staged an armed coup in an effort to overthrow the government of Chiang Kai-shek of the Kuomintang party. The civil war and revolution became possible thanks to the events of 1945. After the victory over Japan, a base was created here for the rise of communism. Starting in 1946, the USSR began supplying weapons, food and everything necessary to support the Chinese communists who were fighting for the country.

The revolution ended in 1949 with the formation of the People's Republic of China (PRC), where all power was in the hands of the Communist Party. As for the Chiang Kai-shekites, they fled to Taiwan and formed their own state, which was very quickly recognized in the West, and even accepted it into the UN. In response to this, the USSR leaves the UN. This is an important point because it had a major impact on another Asian conflict, the Korean War.

Formation of the State of Israel

From the first meetings of the UN, one of the main issues was the fate of the state of Palestine. At that time, Palestine was actually a colony of Great Britain. The division of Palestine into a Jewish and Arab state was an attempt by the USA and the USSR to strike at Great Britain and its positions in Asia. Stalin approved the idea of ​​​​creating the state of Israel, because he believed in the strength of the “left” Jews, and hoped to gain control over this country, strengthening his position in the Middle East.

The Palestinian problem was resolved in November 1947 at the UN Assembly, where the position of the USSR played a key role. Therefore, we can say that Stalin played a key role in the creation of the state of Israel.

The UN Assembly decided to create 2 states: Jewish (Israel" and Arab (Palestine). In May 1948, the independence of Israel was declared and the Arab countries immediately declared war on this state. The Middle East crisis began. Great Britain supported Palestine, the USSR and the USA - Israel. In In 1949, Israel won the war and immediately a conflict arose between the Jewish state and the USSR, as a result of which Stalin broke off diplomatic relations with Israel.The battle in the Middle East was won by the United States.

Korean War

The Korean War is an undeservedly forgotten event that is little studied today, which is a mistake. After all, the Korean War is the third most fatal in history. During the war years, 14 million people died! Only two world wars had more casualties. The large number of casualties is due to the fact that this was the first major armed conflict of the Cold War.

After the victory over Japan in 1945, the USSR and the USA divided Korea (a former colony of Japan) into zones of influence: united Korea - under the influence of the USSR, South Korea - under the influence of the USA. In 1948, 2 states were officially formed:

• Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). Zone of influence of the USSR. Head: Kim Il Sung.
• The Republic of Korea. US zone of influence. The director is Lee Seung Mann.

Having secured the support of the USSR and China, Kim Il Sung started the war on June 25, 1950. In fact, it was a war for the unification of Korea, which the DPRK planned to end quickly. The factor of a quick victory was important, since this was the only way to prevent the United States from intervening in the conflict. The beginning was promising; UN troops, which were 90% Americans, came to the aid of the Republic of Korea. After this, the DPRK army was retreating and was close to collapse. The situation was saved by Chinese volunteers who intervened in the war and restored the balance of power. After this, local battles began and the border between North and South Korea was established along the 38th parallel.

First détente of the war

The first détente in the Cold War occurred in 1953 after the death of Stalin. An active dialogue began between the warring countries. Already on July 15, 1953, the new government of the USSR, headed by Khrushchev, announced its desire to build new relations with Western countries based on a policy of peaceful coexistence. Similar statements were made from the opposite side.

A big factor in stabilizing the situation was the end of the Korean War and the establishment of diplomatic relations between the USSR and Israel. Wanting to demonstrate to the panicked countries the desire for peaceful coexistence, Khrushchev withdrew Soviet troops from Austria, having obtained a promise from the Austrian side to maintain neutrality. Naturally, there was no neutrality, just as there were no concessions or gestures from the United States.

Détente lasted from 1953 to 1956. During this time, the USSR established relations with Yugoslavia and India, and began to develop relations with African and Asian countries that had only recently freed themselves from colonial dependence.

A new round of tension

Hungary

At the end of 1956, an uprising began in Hungary. Local residents, realizing that the position of the USSR after Stalin's death had become noticeably worse, rebelled against the current regime in the country. As a result, the Cold War came to its most important point. For the USSR there were 2 ways:

1. Recognize the revolution's right to self-determination. This step would give all other countries dependent on the USSR the understanding that they could leave socialism at any moment.
2. Suppress the rebellion. This approach was contrary to the principles of socialism, but this was the only way to maintain a leading position in the world.

Option 2 was chosen. The army suppressed the rebellion. To suppress in some places it was necessary to use weapons. As a result, the revolution was defeated, and it became clear that “détente” was over.

Caribbean crisis

Cuba is a small state near the United States, but it almost brought the world to nuclear war. At the end of the 50s, a revolution took place in Cuba and power was seized by Fidel Castro, who declared his desire to build socialism on the island. For America, this was a challenge - a state appeared near their border that acts as a geopolitical adversary. As a result, the United States planned to resolve the situation militarily, but was defeated.

The Krabi Crisis began in 1961 after the USSR secretly delivered missiles to Cuba. This soon became known, and the US President demanded that the missiles be withdrawn. The parties escalated the conflict until it became clear that the world was on the verge of a nuclear war. As a result, the USSR agreed to withdraw missiles from Cuba, and the United States agreed to withdraw its missiles from Turkey.

"Prague Vienna"

In the mid-60s, new tensions arose - this time in Czechoslovakia. The situation here was very reminiscent of the one that existed earlier in Hungary: democratic trends began in the country. Mostly young people opposed the current government, and the movement was led by A. Dubcek.

A situation arose, as in Hungary, - allowing for a democratic revolution meant giving an example to other countries that the socialist system could be overthrown at any time. Therefore, the Warsaw Pact countries sent their troops to Czechoslovakia. The rebellion was suppressed, but the suppression caused outrage throughout the world. But it was a cold war, and, of course, any active actions by one side were actively criticized by the other side.

Détente in war

The peak of the Cold War came in the 50s and 60s, when the deterioration of relations between the USSR and the United States was so great that war could break out at any moment. Starting in the 70s, the war began to detente and the subsequent defeat of the USSR. But in this case I want to dwell briefly on the USA. What happened in this country before “détente”? In fact, the country ceased to be a people's country and came under the control of capitalists, under which it remains to this day. One can say even more - the USSR won the Cold War against the USA in the late 60s, and the USA, as a state of the American people, ceased to exist. The capitalists seized power. The apogee of these events was the assassination of President Kennedy. But after the United States became a country representing capitalists and oligarchs, they already won the Cold War of the USSR.

But let's return to the Cold War and détente in it. These signs were identified in 1971 when the USSR, USA, England and France signed agreements to begin the work of a commission to resolve the Berlin problem, as a point of constant tension in Europe.

Final Act

In 1975, the most significant event of the Cold War détente occurred. During these years, a pan-European meeting on security was held, in which all European countries took part (of course, including the USSR, as well as the USA and Canada). The meeting took place in Helsinki (Finland), so it went down in history as the Helsinki Final Act.

As a result of the congress, an Act was signed, but before that there were difficult negotiations, primarily on 2 points:

• Freedom of the media in the USSR.
• Freedom to travel “from” and “to” the USSR.

A commission from the USSR agreed to both points, but in a special formulation that did little to oblige the country itself. The final signing of the Act became the first symbol that the West and East could come to an agreement among themselves.

New aggravation of relations

In the late 70s and early 80s, a new round of the Cold War began, when relations between the USSR and the USA became tense. There were 2 reasons for this:

The United States deployed medium-range missiles in Western European countries that were capable of reaching the territory of the USSR.

The beginning of the war in Afghanistan.

As a result, the Cold War reached a new level and the enemy took up the usual business - an arms race. It hit the budgets of both countries very hard and ultimately led the United States to the terrible economic crisis of 1987, and the USSR to defeat in the war and subsequent collapse.

Historical meaning

Surprisingly, in our country the Cold War is not taken seriously. The best fact demonstrating the attitude towards this historical event in our country and in the West is the spelling of the name. In all our textbooks, “Cold War” is written in quotation marks and with a capital letter, in the West – without quotation marks and with a small letter. This is the difference in attitude.

It really was a war. It’s just that in the understanding of people who have just defeated Germany, war is weapons, shots, attack, defense, and so on. But the world has changed and in the Cold War, contradictions and ways to resolve them came to the fore. Of course, this also resulted in real armed clashes.

In any case, the results of the Cold War are important, since as a result of its results the USSR ceased to exist. This ended the war itself, and Gorbachev received a medal in the United States “for victory in the Cold War.”

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

In the mid-80s, international relations reached a critical point, the atmosphere of the Cold War was revived in the world again. The USSR found itself in a difficult situation: the Afghan war continued, a new round of the arms race began, which the country’s depleted economy could no longer withstand Technical lag in the main sectors of the economy, low labor productivity, the cessation of economic growth - all this became evidence of the deep crisis of the communist system. Under such conditions, another change in the political leadership of the USSR took place. In March 1985, MS Gorbachev was elected General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, with whose name fundamental changes in foreign policy of the USSR policy of the USSR.

Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev (b. 1931) - Soviet party and statesman 31955 on Komsomol and party work in the Stavropol region of the RSFSR 1978-1985 Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee 31980 member of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, from 1985 General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee U1988-1990. Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR In 1990-1991. President of the USSR Initiator of\"perestroika\", which led to significant changes in the economic and political spheres of life of Soviet society, as well as in international relations Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize for 1990 August 19-21, 1991 Gorbachev was removed from power orthodoxically by senior officials who , trying to preserve the Union unchanged, carried out a coup d'etat. He remained President of the USSR until December 25, 1991, but had no real power and was unable to stop the process of the final collapse of the USSR. Since December 1991, President of the International Foundation for Social, Economic and Political Research (\"Gorbachev- fund\") In 1996, he took part in the presidential elections of the Russian Federation, but received less than 1% of the votes.

The main directions of Moscow's new policy were to soften relations with the West and promote the resolution of regional conflicts. Declaring a course for the implementation of new political thinking in international relations - recognition of the priority of universal human interests over class ones, as well as the fact that nuclear war cannot be a means of achieving political, ideological and other goals, the Soviet leadership entered into an open dialogue with the West. A series of meetings took place between M. Gorbachev and R. Reagan. In November 1985, at the first meeting in Geneva, the two leaders discussed current problems of international relations and came to the conclusion that a nuclear war should not be unleashed, for in this war there will be no winners in the following meetings (Reykjavik, 1986; Washington, 1987; Moscow, 1988 1988;

New York, 1988) laid the foundations for mutual understanding between the USSR and the USA with the achievement of specific decisions aimed at curtailing the arms race. A particularly important result of this was the signing on December 8, 1987 of an agreement on the removal from European territory of the latest intermediate- and shorter-range nuclear missiles ( 500-5000 km) The complete destruction of two classes of missiles by the USSR and the USA was assumed. For the first time in the post-war period, the USSR agreed to control over the elimination of weapons. In 1987, Soviet-American negotiations began on the limitation and cessation of nuclear tests. cold war soviet critical

In April 1988, an agreement was concluded in Geneva to resolve the conflict in Afghanistan. The USSR and the USA signed a Declaration of International Guarantees and a Memorandum of Understanding. Gradually - until February 15, 1989 9 - Soviet troops were withdrawn from Afghanistan. The shameful war of the Soviet Union in which it lost more than 13 thousand killed.

The American-Soviet peace dialogue continued during the presidency of George W. Bush (1989-1993), in particular, negotiations were underway on the reduction of strategic offensive weapons (START). An important step in this direction was the first visit of MS Gorbachev as President of the USSR to Washington in 1990 and his negotiations with George Bush Here the main provisions of the START treaty were agreed upon, and an agreement was concluded on the elimination of the vast majority of chemical weapons and the cessation of their production. The documents noted that the period of confrontation between the West and the East is giving way to partnership and cooperation.

The negotiation process covered a wide range of weapons. In 1989, multilateral negotiations began in Vienna on the reduction of armed forces and conventional weapons in Europe. At a meeting of 22 countries participating in the Conference on Security and Cooperation (OSCE) in November 1990 in Paris, the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces was signed forces in Europe, which determined the radical reduction of NATO conventional forces and air defense forces.

The transition to political pluralism in Yugoslavia took place in 1990 against the backdrop of aggravated interethnic contradictions that led to the collapse of the federation Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Macedonia declared independence in 1991 The communists retained power only in Serbia and Montenegro These two republics announced the restoration of the Yugoslav federation Serbia the population of Croatia (11%) and Bosnia and Herzegovina demanded the annexation of their areas of compact residence into Serbia. In the former Yugoslavia, an interethnic war broke out, which became especially brutal in Bosnia and Herzegovina. To resolve these contradictions, the UN military contingent, which included included a Ukrainian unit.

The final end of the Cold War period was marked by the unification of Germany. In February 1990, the four victorious states in World War II - the USSR, the USA, Great Britain and France - agreed with two German states - the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic - on the creation of a negotiation mechanism \"2 4\" for the unification of Germany In September 1990, the Treaty on the final settlement of the German question was concluded in Moscow, according to which the united Germany recognized the existing borders in Europe, renounced weapons of mass destruction, and pledged to reduce its armed forces. The Soviet Union committed to withdraw its troops from territory of Germany and did not deny its entry into NATO.

Changes in the political climate of Eastern Europe led to the dissolution of the Department of Internal Affairs in 1991 and the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Germany in subsequent years; the powerful state of the communist bloc - the USSR - also collapsed. Back in November 1988, the Supreme Council of the Estonian PCP proclaimed the state sovereignty of Estonia for 1989-1990. for the first time in the republics of the USSR, elections were held on a multi-party basis. National-patriotic forces ousted the communists from the helm of power. The newly elected Supreme Council of Ukraine on July 16, 1990 adopted the Declaration on State Sovereignty of Ukraine. Declarations on state sovereignty were also proclaimed by the parliaments of Lithuania, Latvia, Belarus, Russia, Moldova and other republics After an unsuccessful attempt by conservative forces to carry out a coup d'etat in the USSR (August 19-20, 1991), the participant in the rebellion, the Communist Party, was outlawed. On August 24, 1991, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine adopted the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine, and on December 1, 1991, an All-Ukrainian referendum more than 90% of the votes approved it. On December 8, 1991, in Belovezhskaya Pushcha, the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus announced the cessation of the existence of the USSR as a subject of international law. A new association was created - the Friendship of the Independent States (CIS), which is more of a political declaration than a real successor to the treaty USSR and responsible for all agreements signed by Moscow, Russia declared itself after the collapse of the USSR, Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan became nuclear powers, having concluded an agreement in Lisbon in 1992 that they, except Russia, would lose nuclear weapons within 7 years. Based on these agreements and Presidents B. Yeltsin and George W. Bush in Washington signed the text of the START-1 treaty in the same year, according to which the United States and the states of the former USSR reduce strategic offensive weapons by 50% for 7 years, symbolizing the end of the confrontation between the USSR and the United States. USA.

The final end of the Cold War period is considered to be:

o withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan (February 1989);

o the fall of totalitarian regimes in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (1989);

o the destruction of the Berlin Wall (November 1989 p);

o German reunification and dissolution of the Warsaw Pact (July 1991 p)

On February 1, 1992, George W. Bush and B. Yeltsin signed an agreement at Camp David, according to which the United States and Russia ceased to consider each other as potential adversaries, laying the foundation for the development of partnerships between them. However, in the late 1990s, the crisis in Kosovo and events in Chechnya has revived mutual mistrust in relations between the two largest nuclear states.

In January 1993, in Moscow, Yeltsin and Bush signed a new START-2 treaty on halving strategic offensive weapons to the level of the START-1 treaty. According to the trilateral agreement between the United States, Russia and Ukraine of Ukraine dated January 14, 1994, Ukraine agreed to transfer 200 nuclear warheads For dismantling to Russia, Moscow undertook to provide nuclear fuel to Ukraine, and the United States - to finance this agreement.

With the collapse of communism, the bipolarity of the world and confrontation along the East-West line disappeared, but the number of international conflicts did not decrease. The conflict in the Persian Gulf became especially dangerous, which began with an attack in August 1990 by the troops of the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein on Kuwait. The UN Security Council condemned the aggression , set the date for the withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait - January 15, 1991. Multinational armed forces under the leadership of the American command conducted Operation Desert Storm against Iraq and liberated Kuwait.

The changes that took place in international life in the early 90s led to a new balance of power in the world. Russia was unable to support the “pro-Soviet” regimes in Asia and Africa. This contributed to the establishment or deepening of dialogue in resolving regional conflicts, in particular Arab- Israeli Although the process of normalizing relations between Israel and Arab countries is constantly being slowed down, the path to ending this long-term conflict is outlined quite clearly. The conflicts in Cambodia, Angola, Mozambique were generally resolved, the apartheid regime in South Africa was eliminated in 1990. However, a fair and secure world community is still far away On the territory of the former USSR and the camp of socialism, local conflicts arose and continue to smolder (Russia’s war against Chechnya, the Abkhaz-Georgian conflict, Armenian-Azerbaijani clashes in Karabakh, unsettled relations after the bloody clashes between Moldova and the so-called Transnistrian Moldavian Republic, interethnic conflicts on the territory of its former Yugoslavia, etc. Yugoslavia too).

An important element of international relations was the acceleration of Western European and pan-European integration. In 1992, in Maastricht (Netherlands), the member countries of the European Economic Union signed a new treaty on the European Union, on the basis of which the creation of an economic and monetary union was completed in 1999. The Community also plans to develop common defense in security policy and introduce a single European citizenship In 1997, the EU introduced a single European citizenship, which does not abolish national citizenship. On January 31, 1999, a single currency - the euro - was introduced for non-cash transactions in 12 of the 15 EU countries (Belgium, Germany, Greece, Spain and Spain.

In May In 2004, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovenia, Poland, Ugorshchina, and the Czech Republic joined the EU; on January 1, 2007, Bulgaria and Romania became full members of the EU. About the North Atlantic bloc, at the beginning of 1994 the United States proposed a program in NATO "Partnership for peace\", which provides for the gradual rapprochement of the countries of Eastern Europe 1997, the Atlantic leadership considered applications for accession to NATO from Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary and accepted them into NATO in 1999. In May 2004, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania became NATO members , Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia In July 1997, in Madrid, the President of Ukraine L. Kuchma signed the Charter on Special Relations between Ukraine and NATO, which provided for the expansion of relations between Kiev and Brussels in matters of European security. In 1997, the NATO Information and Documentation Center was opened in Kiev Ukraine, and in 1999 the NATO Liaison Office was founded in Ukraine no Since 2000, Kiev and Brussels began a number of initiatives that were supposed to contribute to the development of a special partnership between both parties, in particular in 2001 the State Program of Cooperation between Ukraine and NATO for 2001-2004 was approved g, the State Council for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration of Ukraine was created in 2002 and the National Center for Euro-Atlantic Integration of Ukraine in 2003, meetings of the Ukraine-NATO Commission were held in Istanbul in 2004 and President V. Yushchenko declared as one of main priorities of the new government, Ukraine's accession to NATO in April 2005, during the "Ukraine - NATO" meeting (Vilnius, Lithuania) at the level of foreign ministers, a dialogue regarding Ukraine's membership in NATO was officially launched. However, political instability in Ukraine, foreign policy complications are the brakes on European integration The processes of Ukraine are complicated by the European integration process of Ukraine.

The international situation in the post-communist era has not become more predictable and stable. In overcoming local and regional conflicts, the United Nations plays an increasingly important role, which plays the role of the main guarantor of international security.

The most important factor influencing the development of international relations in the post-bipolar era was US foreign policy. The Republican administration of George W. Bush, elected the 43rd President of the United States in November 2000, proclaimed the long-term goal of establishing the dominant position of the United States in the system of international relations. Washington set a course for quantitative and qualitative strengthening of military power. The US military budget grew from $310 billion in 2001 to $380 billion in 2003 and to $450 billion in 2008. The United States went beyond the limits of the ABM Treaty, announcing in 2001 The National Missile Defense System (NMD) is being deployed. The Bush Administration actively promoted the accession of the countries of Central-Eastern Europe and the Baltics to NATO.

An important place in US foreign policy was occupied by the fight against international terrorism, especially after the terrorist attacks against American cities on September 11, 2001, the United States created a broad anti-terrorist police coalition, which in October 2001 began a war against the Taliban government in Afghanistan, which gave refuge to terrorists. "Al-Qaddi\" A characteristic feature of the foreign policy course of the George W. Bush administration is the growing unilateralism in decision-making on international issues, which, in particular, manifested itself in the decision in March 2003 to war against Iraq, contrary to the position of the UN and many states. This war complicated sons of the United States with France, Germany, and other states. American-Russian relations developed ambiguously. Support by the Russian Federation for US anti-terrorism activities after the September events of 2001 contributed to a significant improvement in relations between the two states, but the Russian leadership’s condemnation of the US war, human rights violations in Russia, and Moscow’s desire to play dominant role in the post-Soviet space, which led to Russian-Ukrainian contradictions through Tuzla, the Russian-Georgian war in South Ossetia in the fall of 2008, the energy (gas) war against Ukraine for example at the end of 2008 - beginning of 2009, spoiled bilateral US-Russian relations in the region In the Persian Gulf, international tensions caused by military actions in Afghanistan and Iraq are intensified by US-Russian contradictions over Iran's nuclear program. Russia continues to provide assistance (sells equipment) in the construction of an Iranian nuclear power plant, the waste of which can be used to make nuclear weapons, while the United States The United States resolutely opposes the development of Iran's nuclear program. The US war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict periodically develops into a crisis situation, etc. - all this turns the Near and Middle East into an explosive regional disaster.

The end of the 20th century - the beginning of the 21st century associated with both the weakening and intensification of many conflicts that have not only domestic political but also international significance. They are based on many factors: religious, ethnic, socio-economic, etc. The struggle of the Tamil minority in Sri -Lanka for the formation of its own state, the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the desire of a significant part of the Tibetan people for independence, the Chechen wars demanded adequate responses not only from individual countries, but also from the entire world community.

Some results of the last century and new plans for the future were formulated in the declarations and program of action of the Millennium Summit, held under the auspices of the UN on September 8, 2000 at the level of heads of state and government. One of the priority tasks was to overcome poverty and misery by 2015, improve the situation with human rights But humanity only stands in the way of achieving these tasks Today, about half of the world's population lives below the poverty line One of the main priorities, including in the activities of the UN, is the fight against the spread of HIV / AIDS However, according to the UN special agency for the fight against With the epidemic of this disease, effectively combating AIDS in poor countries requires a fairly significant amount - up to 10 billion US dollars annually.

The UN is working to alleviate the plight of refugees forced to seek salvation and help abroad. In 2006, there were up to 10 million people under the patronage of the UN Refugee Agency. The organization maintains its offices in Afghanistan and Sudan with a total of 18 UN peacekeeping missions in 2004, seven operated in Africa and two in Asia. While the UN is an organization of global importance, whose activities cover almost all areas of mutual activity between states, at the beginning of the 21st century, various interstate organizations with different functional tasks are playing an increasingly prominent role. World oil prices are formed largely under the influence of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), formed in 1960. Of its twelve members, 10 belong to the countries of the Afro-Asian region.

An important role in the intercivilizational dialogue as a representative of the Islamic world is played by the League of Arab States, created back in 1945, which includes 22 Arab countries. This organization is an important factor in influencing the international political situation in the Near and Middle East. Despite the significant differences in the Arab world, Since 2005, a pan-Arab parliament began its work to further promote greater consolidation of the Arab world, including on key international issues.

An important systemic factor of stability and development in the Asia-Pacific region can be called the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), a political and economic organization formed in 1967.

In order to overcome specific African problems, strengthening the role of Africa in the modern world, in 2002 the previous organization of African unity was transformed into the African Union (AU), within which a gradual process of political and economic integration of 53 countries of the Black Continent began. The AU plays an important role in the process of pacification (reconciliation) of long-term civil conflicts In July 2007, together with the UN, the AU launched a peacekeeping operation in the Sudanese province of Darfur, in which more than 70 thousand people died as a result of the conflict between the Sudanese government and the local population.

In the field of view of the informal association of the world's leading economic powers - the G8, which includes Japan, key world problems and ways to overcome them are discussed. In particular, in 2007, the topics of the 33rd summit of the heads of state of these countries covered issues of global warming, the situation in the Middle East and Iraq, as well as the situation in Africa and Africa.

The article is devoted to the analysis of the process of formation of a new international system and the determination of Russia’s place in it. The author of the article identifies several stages in the evolution of the international system of the late 20th - early 21st centuries. As a result, the author points out the need to develop a new concept of the world order in Russian political science. The article presents the author's conceptual idea of ​​vision of the current state of the world system - the idea of ​​global stratification.

This article is devoted to analysis of the formation process of the new international system and the detection of Russia's place in this system. The author identifies several stages of evolution of the international system at the late XX - early XXI century. As a result the author points to the necessity of the new concept of world order in Russian political science. The article presents the author's idea of ​​a conceptual vision of the current state of the world system - the idea of ​​global stratification.

A new system of international relations began at the end of the twentieth century as a result of the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the bipolar system of international relations. However, during this period, more fundamental and qualitative systemic transformations took place: along with the Soviet Union, not only the confrontational system of international relations of the Cold War period and the Yalta-Potsdam world order ceased to exist, but the much older system of the Peace of Westphalia and its principles were undermined.

However, throughout the last decade of the twentieth century, there were active discussions in world science about what the new configuration of the world would be in the spirit of Westphalia. The dispute erupted between two main concepts of world order: the concepts of unipolarity and multipolarity.

Naturally, in light of the just-ended Cold War, the first conclusion to be drawn was a unipolar world order, supported by the only remaining superpower - the United States of America. Meanwhile, in reality everything turned out to be not so simple. In particular, as some researchers and politicians point out (for example, E.M. Primakov, R. Haas, etc.), with the end of the bipolar world, the very phenomenon of superpower disappeared from the world economic and geopolitical foreground in its traditional sense: “During the Cold War, war," as long as there were two systems, there were two superpowers - the Soviet Union and the United States. Today there are no superpowers at all: the Soviet Union has ceased to exist, but the United States, although it has exceptional political influence and is the most powerful state in the world militarily and economically, has lost such status.” As a result, the role of the United States was declared not as the only one, but as one of several pillars of the new world order.

The American idea was being challenged. The main opponents of the US monopoly in the world are United Europe, the increasingly powerful China, Russia, India and Brazil. For example, China, followed by Russia, adopted the concept of a multipolar world in the 21st century as their official foreign policy doctrine. A kind of struggle has unfolded against the threat of unipolarity, for maintaining a multipolar balance of power as the main condition for stability in the world. In addition, it is also obvious that in the years since the liquidation of the USSR, the United States has actually been unable, despite its desire for world leadership, to establish itself in this role. Moreover, they had to experience the bitterness of failure; they got stuck in places where there seemed to be no problems (especially in the absence of a second superpower): in Somalia, Cuba, the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq. Thus, the United States at the turn of the century was unable to stabilize the situation in the world.

Events of the late 20th - early 21st centuries that changed the world

While there was debate in scientific circles about the structure of the new system of international relations, a number of events that occurred at the turn of the century actually dotted the i’s themselves.

Several stages can be distinguished:

1. 1991 - 2000 - this stage can be defined as a period of crisis of the entire international system and a period of crisis in Russia. At this time, world politics was categorically dominated by the idea of ​​unipolarity led by the United States, and Russia was perceived as a “former superpower”, as a “losing side” in the Cold War, some researchers even write about the possible collapse of the Russian Federation in the near future (for example, Z. Brzezinski ). As a result, during this period there was a certain dictate regarding the actions of the Russian Federation from the world community.

This was largely due to the fact that the foreign policy of the Russian Federation in the early 90s of the twentieth century had a clear “pro-American vector.” Other trends in foreign policy appeared approximately after 1996, thanks to the replacement of the Westerner A. Kozyrev as Minister of Foreign Affairs by the statist E. Primakov. The difference in the positions of these figures has led to not only a change in the vector of Russian policy - it is becoming more independent, but many analysts are talking about transforming the model of Russian foreign policy. Changes introduced by E.M. Primakov, may well be called a consistent “Primakov Doctrine”. “Its essence: to interact with the main world actors, without rigidly siding with anyone.” According to the Russian researcher A. Pushkov, “this is a “third way” that allows one to avoid the extremes of the “Kozyrev doctrine” (“the position of America’s junior partner who agrees to everything or almost everything”) and the nationalist doctrine (“to distance oneself from Europe, the USA and Western institutions - NATO, the IMF, the World Bank"), try to turn into an independent center of gravity for all those who do not have good relations with the West, from the Bosnian Serbs to the Iranians."

After E. Primakov’s resignation from the post of Prime Minister in 1999, the geostrategy he had defined was basically continued - in fact, there was no other alternative to it and it met Russia’s geopolitical ambitions. Thus, Russia finally managed to formulate its own geostrategy, which is conceptually well founded and quite practical. It is quite natural that the West did not accept it, since it was ambitious in nature: Russia still intends to play the role of a world power and is not going to agree to a decrease in its global status.

2. 2000-2008 - the beginning of the second stage was undoubtedly marked to a greater extent by the events of September 11, 2001, as a result of which the idea of ​​unipolarity actually collapses in the world. In US political and scientific circles, they are gradually beginning to talk about a departure from hegemonic policies and the need to establish US global leadership, supported by its closest allies from the developed world.

In addition, at the beginning of the 21st century, there is a change of political leaders in almost all leading countries. In Russia, a new president, V. Putin, comes to power and the situation begins to change.

Putin finally affirms the idea of ​​a multipolar world as the basic one in Russia's foreign policy strategy. In such a multipolar structure, Russia claims to be one of the main players, along with China, France, Germany, Brazil and India. However, the United States does not want to give up its leadership. As a result, a real geopolitical war is playing out, and the main battles are playing out in the post-Soviet space (for example, “color revolutions”, gas conflicts, the problem of NATO expansion to a number of countries in the post-Soviet space, etc.).

Some researchers define the second stage as “post-American”: “We live in the post-American period of world history. This is actually a multipolar world, based on 8 - 10 pillars. They are not equally strong, but have enough autonomy. These are the USA, Western Europe, China, Russia, Japan, but also Iran and South America, where Brazil plays a leading role. South Africa on the African continent and other pillars are centers of power.” However, this is not a “world after the USA” and especially without the USA. This is a world where, due to the rise of other global “power centers” and their increasing influence, the relative importance of America’s role has been diminishing, as has been the case in global economics and trade over the past decades. A real “global political awakening” is taking place, as Z. Brzezinski writes in his latest book. This “global awakening” is determined by such multidirectional forces as economic success, national dignity, increasing levels of education, information “weapons,” and the historical memory of peoples. This, in particular, is where the rejection of the American version of world history arises.

3. 2008 - present - the third stage, first of all, was marked by the coming to power of a new president in Russia - D.A. Medvedev. In general, the foreign policy of the times of V. Putin was continued.

In addition, the events in Georgia in August 2008 played a key role at this stage:

firstly, the war in Georgia was evidence that the “transitional” period of transformation of the international system had ended;

secondly, there was a final balance of power at the interstate level: it became obvious that the new system has completely different foundations and Russia will be able to play a key role here by developing some kind of global concept based on the idea of ​​multipolarity.

“After 2008, Russia moved to a position of consistent criticism of the global activities of the United States, defending the prerogatives of the UN, the inviolability of sovereignty and the need to strengthen the regulatory framework in the security sphere. The United States, on the contrary, shows disdain for the UN, promoting the “interception” of a number of its functions by other organizations - NATO, first of all. American politicians are putting forward the idea of ​​​​creating new international organizations on political and ideological principles - based on the conformity of their future members with democratic ideals. American diplomacy stimulates anti-Russian tendencies in the politics of the countries of Eastern and South-Eastern Europe and is trying to create regional associations in the CIS without the participation of Russia,” writes Russian researcher T. Shakleina.

Russia, together with the United States, is trying to form some kind of adequate model of Russian-American interaction “in the context of weakening overall governance of the world system.” The previously existing model was adapted to take into account the interests of the United States, since Russia had long been busy restoring its own strength and was largely dependent on relations with the United States.

Today, many people accuse Russia of being ambitious and intending to compete with the United States. American researcher A. Cohen writes: “...Russia has noticeably tightened its international policy and is increasingly relying on force rather than international law to achieve its goals... Moscow has intensified its anti-American policies and rhetoric and is ready to challenge US interests where and when possible, including the Far North."

Such statements form the current context of statements about Russia’s participation in world politics. The desire of the Russian leadership to limit the dictates of the United States in all international affairs is obvious, but thanks to this, there is an increase in the competitiveness of the international environment. However, “reducing the intensity of contradictions is possible if all countries, not just Russia, realize the importance of mutually beneficial cooperation and mutual concessions.” It is necessary to develop a new global paradigm for the further development of the world community, based on the idea of ​​multi-vector and polycentricity.

The system of “global stratification” is a new type of world system of the 21st century.

So, today - by the end of 2009 - we can say that the “transition period”, the “post-Cold War” period, has ended in the world. The world system met the second decade of the 21st century structured in a completely new way.

The world at the end of the 20th and beginning of the 21st centuries underwent a fundamental transformation. The very nature of international relations has changed. It is obvious that defining the current state of the international system only as the interaction of large and mainly Western powers does not correspond to the realities of the modern world. At the end of the 20th century, fundamental changes occurred in international relations, which allow us to talk about the formation of the following new patterns:

multi-actor - today, along with national states, numerous non-state factors are active players on the world stage;

globalization is a process that determines modern world development, ensuring multi-level, interdependence and mutual vulnerability of the whole world as a whole and all processes occurring in it;

interpenetration of foreign and domestic policies;

the presence of global problems that, for the first time in history, threaten the very existence of humanity, which necessitates cooperation within the entire world community.

World history has never known such a global interconnected and interdependent structure. The need to develop a new concept of the world order becomes obvious. The emerging system certainly requires new approaches to its understanding. Today, as Russian political scientist E.Ya. Batalov, “the time of classical world-system structures is approaching the end and the era of non-classical<…>world systems and world orders that do not fit into the usual<…>diagrams of the 19th and 20th centuries. Today, these systems and orders can only be described as probabilistic, since the tendencies that determine them have manifested themselves to date with varying – often low – degrees of clarity.” Among the “probabilistic” ones we can include the concept of “global stratification” of the system of international relations.

International systems belong to a special type of social systems. Consequently, international systems can be viewed as certain social communities and, accordingly, sociological terms can be applied to them. The concept of “social stratification” is a term borrowed from sociology. In our opinion, this term gives the most suitable description of the state that the emerging system has at this stage.

In sociology, this concept means “the structure of society and its individual layers, a system of signs of social stratification and inequality.” According to the concept of social stratification, society is divided into “higher”, “lower” and “middle” classes and strata. In addition, it is argued that inequality is inevitable in any society, and the movement, movement of people in the system of social stratification in accordance with their abilities and efforts ensures the stability of society. All these features can be attributed to international systems.

One of the most important systemic changes is the quantitative increase and qualitative diversity of the elements of the emerging system. The elements of the global system, the relationship of which forms a certain structure, are new factors of world politics - both state and non-state (non-governmental organizations, transnational corporations, individuals, regions, etc.). There is a certain shift in the centers of power. The right of political primacy today is determined by the ability to effectively and best solve a wide range of problems, determine short-term and long-term priorities, and develop development goals acceptable to the entire world community. It is this variety of modern factors that largely contributes to the formation of a multi-level system of global political governance. New factors actually transformed the classical political system of the world, which was laid down by the agreements of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, where national states acted as elements of interaction.

The system of “global stratification,” based on its definition, assumes the presence of a certain hierarchy of elements within the system. However, unlike the previous system of the nation-state, the elements of the new system are a large number of new factors, a single hierarchy of which is extremely difficult to build. It is difficult to say unequivocally which factor is the most influential today - for example, the individual nation state of the United States or the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda or the international United Nations, etc. Consequently, it can be argued that due to the structural complexity of the global system, the hierarchy within such a system will also have a more complex, multidimensional nature. At this stage, it seems difficult to determine which factor will be able to take a leading place in the new hierarchy. But it can already be stated that in addition to the general global hierarchy, there will be independent hierarchies within individual subsystems and levels.

Thus, modern Russia, when conducting its foreign policy, should take into account the stratification nature of the new system, and it is Russia that can play a key role in the process of development of such a system. It should be noted that the concept of “stratification” in this case is not negative, but corresponds to the ideas of multi-levelness and interdependence. The uniqueness of Russia’s position in such a system is that it is one of the few countries that are present at all levels of such a system: national, regional, global.

By the end of the first decade of the 21st century, Russia was able to restore its strength to a greater extent, clearly formulate a geostrategy and determine the main directions of its foreign policy for the next decades. However, the primary task, in our opinion, is to develop a competent image policy for Russia, the goal of which should be to change the attitude towards Russia as the “successor of the USSR” and ensure the attractiveness of the Russian Federation as a full and reliable partner, both for its closest neighbors and and for the entire world community. The events of the same August 2008 in Georgia prove the need to develop such a policy. In the process of forming image policy, Russian political science should play a key role, which should begin to develop its own, different from Western, concepts, approaches, and paradigms that meet the interests of Russia. At the same time, it is very important that these scientific developments find application in political practice.

Russians began looking towards Latin America in the mid-2000s, when Washington's rhetoric towards Russia and some Latin American states became increasingly belligerent. In particular, military, economic and political ties between Russia and the oil giant Venezuela deepened. Moreover, last year Russia sent the world's most powerful warship, the Kirov-class guided missile cruiser, as well as its most formidable strategic bomber, the Tu-160, to Venezuela. To Venezuela - because the growing hostility of the United States towards the regime in Caracas and the introduction of sanctions are pushing Venezuelans into Russian arms. Russia's influence in the Venezuelan military is growing, thanks to multibillion-dollar arms contracts and the export of Russia's most powerful weapons systems to Venezuela.

And that is not all. Russia is also establishing serious ties with other “anti-American” presidents of the region - Evo Morales in Bolivia, Ortega in Nicaragua, and, of course, as shown in the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f4ifjfG8Pw), with Cuba . The US embargo against Cuba prevents American capital from participating in the development of large Cuban oil fields, the volume of which is estimated at between 5 and 20 billion barrels; remember that Cuba is 90 miles from Florida.

Under Bush, the United States had zero tolerance for any president in Latin America who questioned the existing exploitative capitalist relationship between those countries and the United States. The coup against Chavez in 2002 was carried out, at the very least, with the approval of Washington; although Chavez - whether you like it or not - is a genuinely popular president of his country. Morales is also a president who receives 60 percent of the vote in referendums. The recent coup d'état in Honduras is another example of how the comprador classes are truly afraid of the masses capable of reforming dictatorship-era constitutions - note that the media does not question the legitimacy of dictatorial constitutions.

Unless Obama abandons the imperialist, anti-democratic logic and vocabulary of the Bush era, Latin America's shift towards Russia, China and India will continue. The "periphery" of the United States now has new choices, and unless the United States realizes this, the periphery will become very different and possibly hostile.

The term "Cold War" was coined by Churchill during his speech in Fulton (USA) on March 5, 1946. No longer the leader of his country, Churchill remained one of the most influential politicians in the world. In his speech, he stated that Europe was divided by the “Iron Curtain” and called on Western civilization to declare war on “communism.” In fact, the war between two systems, two ideologies has not stopped since 1917, however, it took shape as a completely conscious confrontation precisely after the Second World War. Why did World War II essentially become the cradle of the Cold War? At first glance, this seems strange, but if you look at the history of the Second World War, many things will become clearer.

Germany began territorial conquests (Rhineland, Austria), and future allies look at this almost indifferently. Each of the future allies assumed that Hitler's further steps would be directed in the direction they “needed.” Western countries, to a certain extent, encouraged Hitler by turning a blind eye to many violations of international treaties on the demilitarization of Germany. The most striking example of such a policy is the Munich Treaty of 1938, according to which Czechoslovakia was given to Hitler. The USSR was inclined to view Hitler’s actions as a manifestation of the “general crisis of capitalism” and the aggravation of contradictions between “imperialist predators.” Considering that after Munich, when Western countries actually gave Hitler “carte blanche” in moving to the East, every man for himself, Stalin decided and the USSR concluded a “Non-Aggression Pact” with Hitler and, as it later became known, a secret agreement on division spheres of influence. It is now known that Hitler turned out to be unpredictable and started a war against everyone at once, which ultimately destroyed him. But even in his wildest dreams, Hitler could not have imagined the formation of a coalition, which ultimately emerged victorious in the war. Hitler counted on the fact that the deep contradictions that existed between the future allies were insurmountable, and he was mistaken. Now historians have enough data about the personality of Hitler. And, although they say little good about him, no one considers him a fool, which means that the contradictions he was counting on actually existed. That is, the Cold War had deep roots.

Why did it start only after the Second World War? Obviously, this was dictated by the time itself, the era itself. The allies came out of this war so strong, and the means of warfare became so destructive that it became clear: sorting things out using the old methods was too much of a luxury. However, the desire to harass the other side among the coalition partners has not diminished. To a certain extent, the initiative to start the Cold War belonged to Western countries, for which the power of the USSR, which became obvious during the Second World War, turned out to be a very unpleasant surprise. So, the Cold War arose shortly after the end of World War II, when the Allies began to take stock of its results. What did they see? Firstly,. Half of Europe found itself in the Soviet zone of influence, and pro-Soviet regimes were feverishly emerging there. Secondly, a powerful wave of liberation movements arose in the colonies against the mother countries. Thirdly, the world quickly polarized and turned into a bipolar one. Fourthly, two superpowers emerged on the world stage, whose military and economic power gave them significant superiority over others. Plus, the interests of Western countries in various parts of the globe are beginning to collide with the interests of the USSR. It was this new state of the world that emerged after the Second World War that Churchill realized faster than others when he proclaimed the “Cold War.”

The fundamental opposition of the two world systems (capitalist and socialist), economic, political, ideological differences between them. The desire of each system to strengthen its influence in the world, to spread it to new countries and peoples. The policy of imposing their values ​​and order (system) on new territories by warring countries. The readiness of each side to defend its positions by all possible means (economic, political, military). The policy of threats, which already in the first post-war decade led to mutual distrust, the formation of an “enemy image” by each side. THE TRUMAN DOCTRINE AND THE MARSHALL PLAN After the end of World War II, the leadership of the USSR did everything possible to ensure that pro-Soviet forces, primarily communist parties, came to power in the countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe. The USSR presented territorial claims to Turkey and demanded a change in the status of the Black Sea straits, including the USSR's rights to create a naval base in the Dardanelles. In Greece, the partisan movement, led by the communists and fueled by supplies from the borderlands of Albania, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, where the communists were already in power, was gaining strength. At the London meeting of the foreign ministers of the countries of the permanent members of the Security Council, the USSR demanded that it be granted the right to a protectorate over Tripolitania (Libya) in order to ensure a presence in the Mediterranean.

The USSR sought to use the collective security system to expand its power. This was noticed by Western countries and caused alarm. In France and Italy, the Communist parties became the largest political parties in their countries. Here and in a number of Western European countries, communists were part of the governments. In addition, after the withdrawal of the bulk of American troops from Europe, the USSR became the dominant military force in continental Europe. Everything favored the plans of the Soviet leadership. The search for an answer to the Soviet challenge was also underway in the US State Department. American diplomat and Russia specialist George Kennan played an important role in this. In February 1946, while working at the US Embassy in Moscow, he outlined the basic principles of the policy of “containment” in a telegram to Washington. In his opinion, the US government should have responded firmly and consistently to every attempt by the USSR to expand its sphere of influence. Further, in order to successfully resist the penetration of communism, Western countries should strive to create a healthy, prosperous, self-confident society. The policy of “containment” was considered by him as a way to prevent war and was not aimed at inflicting military defeat on the USSR.

Thus, American policy towards the USSR took a new direction: a course was taken to limit the spread of communist ideology in Western Europe and the Soviet Union's support for communist movements. The new policy was expressed in economic, financial and military assistance to non-communist, including the US Harry, anti-democratic regimes. The new Truman Doctrine of US foreign policy was outlined by President Harry Truman in his speech on March 12, 1947 in the US Congress. It was called the Truman Doctrine. A long period of Cold War principles began. Opponents of the Truman Doctrine feared that its new implementation could lead to an armed clash between politics and the USSR.

On March 12, 1947, Truman delivered a speech to a joint session of the Senate and House of Representatives. Having first noted that the seriousness of the situation had forced him to appear before the general meeting of congressmen, he painted a gloomy picture of the situation in Greece. “The Greek government,” he said, “works in conditions of chaos and despair. The Greek army is small and poorly equipped. It needs supplies and weapons in order to restore the government’s power over the entire territory of Greece.” Recognizing that he was proposing to interfere in the internal affairs of other states far from America and that the course he recommended taking was very serious, Truman tried to justify his policy by saying that the United States should interfere in the lives of other nations, supposedly in order to help the majority against minorities. In fact, as D. Horowitz noted in his book "Colossus of the Free World", the United States has consistently supported the haves abroad against the have-nots who form the clear majority. Stating that “the world does not stand still and that the status is not inviolable,” Truman made it clear that the United States would only agree to such changes in the world as they considered correct. If, he went on to say, the United States refuses “to provide assistance to Greece and Turkey at this fateful hour, then this will have far-reaching consequences for the West as well as for the East.” And Truman asked Congress to allocate $400 million for “help” to these two states over the next 15 months. In conclusion, Truman said that the United States spent $341 billion on World War II, and that the appropriations he is now proposing are nonsense : only 0.1% of US spending on this war. The US President's address to Congress on March 12, 1947 was called the “Truman Doctrine.” Despite the preparatory work, the Truman Doctrine met strong opposition in Congress. The debate dragged on for two months. Many in Congress were aware of what the US President's idea meant. One congressman said in his speech: "Mr. Truman demands American intervention on a large scale in the political, military and economic affairs of the Balkans. He speaks of such intervention in other countries also. Even if this were desirable, the United States is not strong enough to rule the world with the help of military forces." Truman compared his doctrine to the Monroe Doctrine. But the Monroe Doctrine did not provide for American intervention in the affairs of other continents.

...

Similar documents

Fundamental changes in the world and international relations as a consequence of the Second World War. Strengthening the military and political influence of the Soviet Union. The beginning of the Cold War, the Iron Curtain, perestroika. Relations with third world countries.

thesis, added 10/20/2010


The Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union as an integral part and main content of the Second World War. The reasons for the difficulties at the beginning of the war, the sources of the victory of the Soviet Union. The most important results of the war. Transformations in the system of international relations.

abstract, added 02/10/2010


Results of the Second World War for the countries of Western and Central Europe and the USA. Common features in the development of Eastern European countries in the 50s. German economic miracle. Decrease in the level of conventional weapons in the late 80s - early 90s. The collapse of the Soviet Union.

test, added 10/29/2014


Analysis of the initial period in the history of the Patriotic War of 1941-1945. The readiness of the Red Army for war, characteristics based on new sources and publications of the period immediately preceding the start of the war. Main results of the beginning of the war.

thesis, added 10/20/2010


The beginning of the Cold War. Truman Doctrine and Marshall Plan. Interests of the USSR, USA, Great Britain and France in Europe and the world after the war. Creation of Cominform and the Soviet-Yugoslav incident. International relations at various stages of the Cold War.

abstract, added 04/03/2010


The essence of the Cold War, its origins and main causes, its place in world history. The prerequisites for the war, the relations between the two opponents - the USSR and the USA on the eve of its outbreak. "Hot spots" of the war, the position of the warring parties and ways of reconciliation.

abstract, added 05/12/2009


Events of post-war foreign policy of the Soviet Union. The beginning of the Cold War between the USSR and the USA and the reasons for its occurrence. Creation of a bloc of socialist countries with the aim of encircling the territory of the USSR with friendly countries. Creation of alliance systems in Europe.

presentation, added 09/01/2011


Cold War concept. Churchill's Fulton speech and the Truman Doctrine. The struggle for spheres of influence in the world. The degree of guilt of the superpowers in starting the Cold War. Stalin's course towards confrontation with the West and a new war. Consequences of the Cold War for the USSR.

presentation, added 03/12/2015


The concept of war, its classification and place in human history. Approaches of great thinkers to determining the nature of war. The role of military action in international relations. The concept of Carl von Clausewitz, its role in the development of international relations.

course work, added 06/17/2011


Relations between the USSR and the USA during the Cold War. The causes and main events of the Cold War period, summing up its results. Conventional and nuclear arms race. Warsaw Pact or Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance.

This article was prepared as part of the work under the Russian Humanitarian Foundation grant “Sociocultural aspects of national security of the Russian Federation.”

Conflicting interests, sometimes reaching the point of rivalry on the brink of war, are a natural state of interstate relations. But the qualitative difference of the Cold War was that beyond this very line there arose the threat of not only mutual assured destruction, but the destruction of the entire world civilization.

The recently published book in Russia by Oliver Stone and Peter Cusick, The Untold History of the United States, quotes the famous American historian Arthur Schlesinger, who suggested that in a hundred years people will find the Cold War strange and incomprehensible... Our descendants will most likely be amazed at the discrepancy between the causes of the Cold War. war and the associated readiness of the two great powers for mutually assured destruction. And if today we are talking about the Cold War again, this is only evidence that the lessons of history teach no one.

Arms race and its rules

After the end of World War II, there were no disagreements between the USSR and the USA that provoked a readiness for mutual destruction, just as there are none now between the Russian Federation and the United States. But the Cold War happened. Why? Three main factors coincided.

First. The prospect of a winding down of the military industry raised fears in the United States of a return to the Great Depression. To maintain military production, an external enemy was needed.

Second. The nuclear bomb created confidence in overwhelming military superiority over the entire world and motivated power politics.

Third. President Truman, not being confident in himself, made concessions to anti-Soviet forces and the military, who considered it possible not only open nuclear blackmail, but also nuclear bombing.

These factors were enough to unleash anti-communist and militaristic hysteria in a couple of years. Attempts by the United States to limit the zone of Soviet influence, contrary to the agreements reached on the post-war world order, forced Moscow to take retaliatory steps. The United States made full use of nuclear blackmail, and after the creation of nuclear missile weapons in the USSR, the Cold War was consolidated on a solid foundation of mutually assured destruction.

The most dangerous period was the initial period. The military, on both sides, viewed nuclear weapons as conventional, but very powerful. Therefore, despite the horrific consequences of the bombing of Japan, its use was included in strategic planning. The United States then had an overwhelming advantage in both the number of nuclear warheads and the means of delivering them. Since the Berlin crisis, American generals were not only ready for a nuclear strike, but also put some pressure on the country's leadership. General MacArthur, who commanded American troops on the Korean Peninsula, proposed striking either the cities of North Korea or the Kremlin. He outlined a new approach - the use of nuclear weapons in the event of unsuccessful military operations, which was used by the North Atlantic Alliance as the basis for nuclear planning. In particular, Washington relied on tactical nuclear weapons.

Doctrinal provisions suggested its use in Europe only as a last resort, when defeat became inevitable. But a deeper analysis showed that such an approach is unrealistic. In the event of a military conflict, tactical nuclear weapons would inevitably be used at the very beginning of the conflict, which would most likely entail the full-scale use of strategic nuclear weapons.

Understanding the dangerous consequences of the disparity in the capabilities of the opposing factions ultimately led to the development of the Treaty on the Limitation of Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE). However, it was signed when it had already begun to lose relevance, and since the mid-1990s. the document was used to put political pressure on Russia, which led to Moscow’s refusal of the treaty.

The desire for superiority not only of conventional armed forces, but of nuclear weapons in the European theater of operations (theater of war) led to the USSR deploying a significant number of medium-range mobile missile systems. However, the United States found a simple and effective answer - it deployed a small number of Pershing-2 missiles in Europe, which had high accuracy and a short flight time to Moscow. There was a real possibility of delivering a decapitation blow. This was enough to force the Soviet leadership to sign an agreement under which medium-range missiles were destroyed not only in the European part, but throughout the country, as a whole, as a class of missiles. The USSR had to eliminate three times more missiles than the United States. Huge amounts of money were wasted.

With regard to strategic nuclear weapons, the approach of American President Eisenhower had a significant impact on the arms race. Being a sober politician who knew the reality of war and had experience in allied interaction with Soviet troops, he believed that the main thing was to ensure quantitative and qualitative superiority over the enemy. The emergence of missile weapons, initially medium-range, through deployment in Europe and Turkey, made it possible to significantly supplement the capabilities of aviation to deliver a nuclear strike. In fact, the foundation of the Cuban Missile Crisis was laid during the Eisenhower presidency.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, an understanding came of the dangers of a policy of nuclear deterrence that corresponded to the methods of street hooligans - “to get scared.” During this period, there were no technical capabilities to prevent unauthorized missile launches. “Fear” could manifest itself at the level of a junior officer who has the technical ability to independently use the nuclear weapons entrusted to him. It is noteworthy that in the Caribbean crisis, the factor of nuclear deterrence turned out to be effective, despite the fact that the US potential was 10 times higher than the Soviet one. And this is also a lesson that should not be forgotten. McNamara's unacceptable harm test was intended for other states. For itself, apparently, the United States has defined unacceptable damage at the level of preventing a single nuclear explosion on its territory.

It is important not to forget one more instructive point. In addition to medium-range missiles, Moscow secretly deployed tactical nuclear weapons in Cuba. But secrecy prevented the use of its deterrent potential. As a result, both President Kennedy and Secretary of Defense McNamara managed with great difficulty to restrain those military men and politicians who demanded an immediate strike and invasion of Cuba. If information about tactical nuclear weapons was known to the Americans, no invasion could even be discussed. It is not in their tradition to suffer such human losses. Hence the conclusion - to achieve the goal of deterrence, it is necessary to maintain a balance of secrecy and demonstrative openness when measures are taken to change the combat readiness of nuclear weapons.

It was during the Caribbean crisis that the practice of direct contacts between politicians began to be developed, and specific organizational and technical measures were taken to prevent nuclear war. The fact that Robert McNamara was US Secretary of Defense played a huge role in further building relations between the two nuclear powers. A sober-minded and highly educated manager, McNamara formulated the criteria for the required number of nuclear weapons, strategic stability and the relationship between the levels of development of strategic offensive and defensive weapons.

No less important was the fact that John Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev, despite pressure from overzealous politicians and military personnel, decisively and clearly outlined the desire for a lasting peace. It was largely due to their personal efforts that the first nuclear arms control agreement, the Three-Environment Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, emerged.

The Cuban missile crisis gave impetus in another direction. Both powers developed certain rules of conduct that made it possible to create a nuclear arms control system. Initially, it was possible to limit the growth of strategic nuclear weapons and missile defense systems, and then began to reduce them. This process continues despite current problems.

Why did we go back to the past?

However, today both countries have reached such a level of relations that they are again talking about the Cold War. The West demonstrates strength (exercises near Russian borders, transfer of additional heavy equipment to the exercise area, etc.), including with signs of nuclear blackmail (relocation of strategic bombers to Europe for the period of exercises, statements about the possibility of deploying American medium-range missiles in European countries under the pretext of Russia’s alleged violation of the INF Treaty, etc.). Moscow is also acting quite in the spirit of the Cold War, and some manifestations make us recall its initial, that is, still poorly managed, phase.

What pushed us to the dangerous brink again? Without claiming to have a complete answer, we can only make a number of assumptions. Several factors are at play.

The first factor is external. After the collapse of the USSR, the United States continued to fight for spheres of influence. And this despite the fact that all Russian presidents indicated their readiness to move towards rapprochement with the West to a level that did not even rule out discussion of the issue of joining NATO. However, no one was going to talk about a real strategic partnership, partly because in the wake of euphoria after the “victory” in the Cold War, the West did not consider it necessary to take Russia seriously, not believing in the prospects for restoring its potential. At the same time, however, they openly encouraged Moscow’s former allies, who never tired of talking about the presence of military threats from its side. The United States has sought to consistently extend its influence throughout the post-Soviet space, based on the assumption that the traditional Russian presence there can be ignored.

The above does not cancel the gross mistakes made by Russia in relations with neighboring countries, and, unfortunately, the most disastrous course was in the Ukrainian direction, which became the detonator of the current deep crisis between Moscow and the West. Russia could neither find the right policy instruments in neighboring states, nor establish a balance between its natural historical responsibility to its associated peoples and compatriots, on the one hand, and the need to maintain stability among its neighbors, on the other. And the consequences of these miscalculations will have a long impact on the already complex process of developing a new sense of self for Russia.

And yet, the policy of the United States towards the Russian Federation has created a significant potential for anti-American sentiment in Russian society, including among the younger generation, not familiar with the atmosphere of a real Cold War. And this potential is becoming in demand by Russian authorities in the interests of domestic policy.

The second factor is internal. Undertaken in the 1990s. an attempt to immediately step into democracy and a market economy led to a dangerous brink, beyond which the collapse of the state loomed. Crime has poured into power not only locally, but also at the federal level. The moment came when the transition to authoritarian methods of management became logically justified. The statehood was stabilized, but the strengthening of the state, in which corruption had taken strong roots, simultaneously raised its level. The protection of businesses has passed from the hands of criminals to the hands of security structures. “Manual control” came into conflict with the process of formation of a market economy. The accumulation of internal tension has created certain threats to authoritarian power. By effectively suppressing the opposition, the government destroyed the potential for political development, giving the West reason to worry about the revival of authoritarianism in Russia. The Russian ruling class, in turn, used the accumulated anti-American sentiment, stimulating a patriotic upsurge on the verge of nationalism and the perception of the outside world as hostile. Russia's actions to return Crimea, which became a response to active Western policies to encourage regime change in Kyiv, so raised the level of support for the authorities that the West began to fear the revival of full-fledged totalitarianism in Russia. A vicious circle has arisen.

The third factor is also internal. Both in the United States after World War II and in Russia today, this factor is associated with the defense industry. The problems are, in fact, diametrically opposed. In the United States, the challenge was to limit the potential of the defense industry, but in a way that did not stunt development. And in Russia the goal is to increase the potential of the defense industry for the development of the country. In the 1990s. There was no conversion of defense enterprises in Russia. Some of them took a wait-and-see attitude, getting out in various ways, but losing qualified personnel, while the other part survived on the technologies of the Soviet period, supplying weapons and military equipment to other countries. At the same time, the Armed Forces were experiencing a crisis due to the fact that outdated weapons and military equipment accounted for 80% or more. It was no longer possible to delay any further once rearmament began. The critical situation has been brewing for a long time, and the decision was made during the global economic crisis and on the eve of the fall in oil prices. As a result, the task of rearmament has to be solved with an excess of the permissible share of defense spending (in European NATO countries it is less than 2% of GDP). As is known, in the budgets of developed countries the share of defense spending is less than the share of spending on education and health care. We are forced to rob the social sphere in the interests of defense. Under these conditions, an external enemy is not at all superfluous for domestic politics. Anti-Americanism has become popular, and patriotism has become easily transformed into love for power.

In addition to the task of rearmament, the state probably tried to solve another problem. Privatized enterprises, once in private hands, became objects of real estate auctions, rather than producers of goods and services. The state failed to solve the problem of stimulating production in either small, medium or large businesses, and hence the deepening technological gap. Here the hope arose that new technologies could appear in the defense sector.

The result of these three factors led to a situation where the Cold War was being talked about again. It is important, however, that two of these factors have internal causes. There is only one external factor - rivalry in the post-Soviet space. Therefore, there is every reason to talk about the complete discrepancy between the problems in Russian-American relations and the state of mutual assured destruction characteristic of the Cold War.

How to manage risks

The world has become different, and the main threats are now common. The worsening relations between Russia and the United States weakens their ability to counter real, rather than imaginary, threats. However, unfortunately, experience shows that in practice rational decisions rarely prevail in big politics.

But if we proceed from the worst-case scenario for the development of Russian-American relations, it is worth paying attention to two components that took shape and were maintained during the Cold War.

Firstly, a tolerant attitude of the leadership towards representatives of the intellectual class who (at least ideally) do not adapt to the political situation, are not subject to propaganda pressure and are able to critically evaluate the actions of the authorities.

Secondly, preserving and enhancing joint experience and potential in the field of arms control, which is aimed at neutralizing the main danger - readiness for immediate mutually assured destruction.

It is obvious that contacts between officials today are much more intense than before, including thanks to modern means of communication. Perhaps it is precisely because of this that there is an impression that top echelon managers no longer need contacts and discussion of problems with prominent scientists and politicians, and in general their role has decreased. But this is the wrong way. During difficult times for Soviet-American relations, the practice of Dartmouth meetings and other forms of contacts began. They supplemented the official interaction with an intellectual component, new ideas and non-standard solutions.

In addition, it is necessary to take into account the dependence of political leaders on systems largely formed by them. During a period of increasing tension, they find themselves under pressure from public opinion, a previously created atmosphere of perception of the enemy and a patriotic mood for a decisive rebuff, military men thinking in terms of readiness for an armed conflict, political forces not responsible for the situation, but demonstrating their determination, etc. All this pushes towards decisions that have only a tragic outcome. It is not always possible to find leaders like Kennedy and Khrushchev who can stop the tragic chain of events. At the same time, representatives of the scientific world, not subject to political conjuncture, act actively in such situations and are able to stop the risky drift.

Secondly, the topic of arms control, primarily nuclear, is relevant in any development of events. The experience of the Cold War showed that while one side has an advantage that theoretically allows one to count on military victory, there are always groups that try to direct state policy towards the use of force, including nuclear weapons.

The potential capabilities of non-nuclear weapons of fire and electronic destruction, as well as cyber attacks, can create conditions during a military conflict that motivate the first use of nuclear weapons. It is difficult to imagine that any political leader would consciously make such a decision. However, Russia and the United States have missile systems in their strategic nuclear arsenals that are ready for immediate use, but vulnerable to the enemy’s first strike. First of all, we are talking about ground-based ICBM systems. In a critical situation, a leader may be faced with a choice - either to use nuclear weapons immediately, or to lose them and suffer inevitable defeat.

It is no coincidence that some experts have started talking about the need to develop measures to prevent the country's leader from making such a responsible decision on signals from the missile attack warning system (MAWS) in a short time interval (5-10 minutes). In fact, we are talking about reducing the risk of using nuclear weapons. However, the solution being discussed is questionable. For example, it is proposed to reduce the readiness of those missile systems that are vulnerable to a first strike, so that a situation does not arise that provokes their use after receiving information from the early warning system. But at the same time, long-range non-nuclear high-precision weapons are being developed.

At this stage, when Russia and the United States are bringing their strategic nuclear weapons into compliance with the START-3 treaty, there is little likelihood of starting negotiations on further reductions in strategic nuclear weapons, especially since Russia is talking about the need to transition to a multilateral reduction format, which will also happen in the near future unlikely. The unresolved problem of missile defense also has an impact. It goes beyond the framework of Russian-American relations and also affects the interests of China, i.e. has a negative impact on the possibility of transition to a multilateral format for reducing nuclear weapons.

At the same time, the task of reducing the risks of using nuclear weapons is relevant for all nuclear states and allows for a multilateral discussion format. The first steps may be simple and effective, followed by Russia and the United States and may be quite acceptable to other nuclear states. This is a separate topic, but the approach to it can be outlined.

There is every reason to assert that in peacetime, making a conscious decision to use nuclear weapons is impossible. This was ruled out even at the peak of the Cold War. If, in the absence of an armed conflict, the early warning system gives a signal of a missile attack, then this can only be unreliable information. Its cause may be hardware failures, intentional interference, changes in the state of the Earth's magnetosphere due to disturbances in the Sun, untimely receipt of notifications about planned rocket launches, etc. At the same time, in accordance with accepted procedures of this kind, information must be conveyed to the highest official who has the right to make a decision on the use of nuclear weapons. Given the continuing state of mutual nuclear deterrence and the deployment of the other side's missiles at distances with short flight times, the decision to respond to information about a missile attack must be made under time pressure.

In peacetime, when a sudden nuclear strike is excluded, it is necessary to rid senior management of alarming early warning information. But for this it is necessary to create such conditions for personnel servicing warning systems that would allow either to anticipate the appearance of false signals, or to quickly determine the cause of this.

An attempt to organize such work for early warning systems operators was made in 2000, when Russia and the United States signed a Memorandum on the opening of a Data Exchange Center (DEC) for missile attack warning systems in Moscow. The Center provided for the joint work of American and Russian personnel using national hardware, and subsequently the option of their electrical interfacing. Even at the initial stage of organizing work, the data center could actually free top management from considering obviously unreliable information that could lead to the adoption of inappropriate decisions and the use of nuclear weapons. It is necessary to return to the ideas of 15 years ago, but not dwell on them. Both countries are building nuclear weapons control systems using space assets, which simultaneously serve as the first echelon of a missile attack warning system and a means of transmitting command information. Safety significantly depends on the reliability of space systems for various purposes. Therefore, joint monitoring of the situation in space becomes an objective necessity. In addition, from the very beginning it would be advisable to involve representatives of other states, for example, China, in the work of the Center. And this is already an element of the multilateral regime for controlling and preventing the use of nuclear weapons. It is necessary to move from the idea of ​​creating a Data Exchange Center to creating a joint Center for the Prevention of Nuclear War. And if we are talking about reducing the combat readiness of nuclear weapons in peacetime, it is primarily in the interests of using the process of restoring combat readiness to strengthen the deterrent role of nuclear weapons during a period of military confrontation.

After the outbreak of a military conflict, other factors come into play that influence the possibility of using nuclear weapons. At this time, additional measures will be taken to increase the combat readiness of nuclear weapons, the survivability of both them and the control system. It is important to consider a set of recovery and readiness measures that could be used to curb further escalation of the conflict. To do this, such measures must be demonstrative, that is, sufficiently open.

Thus, the creation of a joint international Center for the Prevention of Nuclear War would lay down a fundamentally new element of the multilateral nuclear arms control regime. The potential for the deterrent role of nuclear weapons is increasing, and the risk of their use is decreasing.

In general, in Russian-American relations there is still no basis for resuscitating the Cold War with balancing on the brink of mutually assured destruction. Geopolitical interests, in the presence of common threats, have clear limits of influence on the process of deterioration of the bilateral atmosphere. Nevertheless, the emerging trends do not allow us to hope for a quick recovery. Therefore, the positive experience accumulated over the decades of the Cold War cannot be forgotten.

A flurry of changes in Eastern Europe... The end of the Cold War... Congress of People's Deputies... USSR: a national explosion... A wave of miners' strikes in the country... The withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan... The last colony gained freedom. .. Meeting of Mikhail Gorbachev with John Paul II... Bicentennial of the Great French Revolution... Return of Solzhenitsyn's books...

These are the headlines of a popular Soviet political weekly published at the end of December 1989. The issue was united by one theme: “Ten events of the year that shocked the world.”

Contents of the magazine "New Time", No. 52, December 1989

“The eleventh – unforeseen and sad – event was the death of Academician Andrei Sakharov.

But the magazine did not have time to talk about the twelfth event - the violent overthrow of the communist regime in Romania, the revolution in this country took place in the days when the issue was already in the printing house."

In the review of publications of that time, offered to Radio Liberty readers, there are several fragments from the materials of that issue.

A flurry of changes in Eastern Europe

Article by a political scientist Marina Pavlova-Silvanskaya"Eastern Europe: group portrait with the USSR":

“By the end of autumn, it was already undeniable that the deepest crisis in this part of our continent had entered the open stage and become universal... The Eastern European countries became like communicating vessels: mass movements literally picked up the ideas and findings of like-minded people on the fly. The general method of groping for consensus became “round tables." The SED decided ( Communist Party of East Germany.– Ed.) to create a workers' commission instead of the resigned Central Committee and Politburo - a few days later the same move was repeated by the Communist Party of Slovakia. Almost immediately after leading SED politicians were taken into custody, the Czechoslovak opposition began to ponder on what legal basis it would be possible to hold accountable as collaborators those who provided the formal clue for the 1968 intervention ( we are talking about the invasion of Soviet and allied armies into Czechoslovakia to suppress democratic reforms. – Ed.). It is clear to the naked eye that the “New Forum in the GDR” and the “Civil Forum” in Czechoslovakia are political twins. No less similar are the steps taken to disarm paramilitary units (workers’ militia and the like) and reorganize state security agencies.”

The end of the Cold War. Drawing from the magazine "New Time", Moscow, December 1989

“No European society has experienced such a vacuum of power in the entire post-war period. In these days of political stagnation in Central and Eastern Europe, international tension on the continent did not escalate noticeably. Our relations with the United States did not cool down. On the contrary, George W. Bush announced the end of the Cold War, and his NATO allies were quick to assure that they would not take advantage of their rival's predicament."

End of the Cold War

The world in 1989 became safer, more open, smarter, writes Galina Sidorova, listing some of the events that ended the ideological confrontation between East and West.

Vein. For the first time, 35 European countries have committed themselves to bringing their legislation in the humanitarian sphere and in the field of human rights into line with international legislation.

London. For the first time, journalists from European countries, the USA and Canada discussed the problems of information exchange and normalization of working conditions for correspondents.

Brussels. For the first time, Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze was received at NATO headquarters. Soon, for the first time, Soviet journalists attended military exercises of the armies of NATO countries.

For the first time, the USSR Ministry of Foreign Affairs presented to the Supreme Council a report on the government's foreign policy activities. There was official repentance for Soviet military intervention in Afghanistan and for the mistakes made by the foreign policy department of the Soviet Union.

The author concludes the article: “What, in my opinion, is beyond doubt is the universalization of the principles of Democracy. Today, the progress of any state in the world is a movement towards Democracy, at the center of which is Personality, Individuality, Man, freely developing and improving.”

Following this publication is an interview with Chairman of the KGB of the USSR Vladimir Kryuchkov. He answers the editor's question: "Do you think the Cold War is over?"

– I would very much like to answer that the Cold War has completely and completely sunk into the past. There are some reasons to think so, if by this term we mean an acute form of political confrontation. If we assume that the end of the Cold War means a reign of complete trust between East and West, then this is not yet the case. Of course, trust is not a purely psychological concept; its components are different and diverse.

Vladimir Kryuchkov, Chairman of the KGB of the USSR, photo from the magazine "New Time", No. 52, 1989

There are several reasons why relapses of the Cold War are making themselves felt. One of them is that the West does not always respond adequately to the open, public policy of the USSR with its desire for peace. Another reason is the ongoing attempts of the military-industrial complex and the far-right forces, hopelessly opposed to anything associated with socialism, to discredit Soviet domestic and foreign policy and to launch an arms race in new forms.

Finally, I cannot help but say that the activities of the special services aimed at interfering in the internal affairs of the Soviet Union are not conducive to the final burial of the Cold War. Is the peace-loving policy of our state, new political thinking an obstacle to good neighborliness and easing international tension? If the intelligence services are not fully independent, and in theory they are not, then they have only one thing left - to bring their activities into line with reality. But the facts, unfortunately, indicate the opposite. Therefore, we are forced to take the necessary measures in the interests of protecting the Soviet state.

No matter how paradoxical it may sound at first glance, today our security agencies are increasingly trying to play the role of an instrument for building confidence. Therefore, we will continue our efforts both to expand mutual understanding between states in general and through special services.

Democratic coup

Through the first free elections in the spring of this year, through parliamentarism and the adoption of cardinal laws, our society entered the path of democracy. This is how the article begins Nikolai Andreev"Democratic revolution" The democratic transformations of this year caused a revolution in the minds of a significant part of our compatriots, forced us to reconsider many moral and ideological values, transformed the political profile of the state, and changed the structure of power.

Cover of the magazine "New Time", No. 52, December 1989

“An avalanche of unheard of and unprecedented information has fallen on society. We have learned almost everything about the past historical path. The exception is information about the activities of party bodies. Transcripts of many party plenums are still a sealed secret. Another thing is alarming: the activities of current party committees are still is covered with a veil of secrecy. These questions are not idle. They have a direct bearing on how democratic relations can be established in society if its vanguard is little democratic in its activities? The party claims to be a leading and directing force,
Party committees intend to develop prospects for the development of society. But will these policies be credible if they are done behind closed doors? Mystery and secrecy irritate society. The result is rumors, conjectures, assumptions. The end result is mistrust...

The Supreme Council differs favorably in this regard. “This is a gigantic office with transparent walls, through which people see everything we do here,” said MP Yevgeny Yevtushenko.

Society has entered a difficult period of mastering democratic procedures and rules. Gone are the illusions that the matter will be resolved by touching up the façade. The illusion that it is possible to get by with a change of personnel has been dispelled. There is also, however, a strong illusion that things can be improved by “bringing up discipline and establishing proper order” and “raising responsibility.” But it will most likely melt away soon. A free personality, free economic conditions, free thought - these are the sound foundations of a dynamic society."

This is what the popular Soviet political weekly Novoye Vremya wrote at the end of 1989.

The submarine Cochino leaves Portsmouth. Presumably July 1949. Photo from the site www.history.navy.mil

A little over a quarter of a century ago, on February 1, 1992, Russian President Boris Yeltsin and US President George H. W. Bush signed a joint declaration at the American leader’s country residence at Camp David. It said, in particular, that from now on “Russia and the United States do not consider each other as potential adversaries.” Moreover, the declaration stated that relations between Russia and the United States “are now characterized by friendship and partnership based on mutual trust, respect and a shared commitment to democracy and economic freedom.” Thus ended the Cold War, which had lasted since 1946.

UNFULFILLED HOPES

As it seemed to the Western media, the Camp David Declaration, adopted at the meeting of the presidents of Russia and the United States, was supposed to put an end to the history of the Cold War. However, time has shown that the declarative theses became just “good wishes”, and “friendship and partnership based on mutual trust” ended in sanctions, threats against Russia and, ultimately, the complete failure of the policy of peace and good neighborliness.

Recent trends in world politics show more and more clearly that relapses of the Cold War are increasingly gaining momentum in the world. Indeed, what else can we call the current relations between Russia, Ukraine, the European Union and the United States. I don't think so.

Moreover, on December 18 last year, the administration of US President Donald Trump published an updated National Security Strategy (NSS), which identifies the so-called revisionist powers, which include the People's Republic of China and the Russian Federation, as one of the threats to the United States. Federation. According to Donald Trump, these states are using available technologies, propaganda and means of pressure, with the help of which they intend to rebuild the world to the detriment of the interests of the United States.

And it is difficult to assess, given the high degree of unpredictability of the actions of the US President Trump administration, what surprises in foreign policy can be expected from our American “friends”, taking into account the updated American strategy.

THEY STARTED FIRST

A brief excursion into the history of the Cold War irrefutably demonstrates that the West is the main source of generating ideas for the Cold War and filling it with belligerent content.

It is generally accepted that the Cold War began with Churchill's famous Fulton speech in March 1946. The situation in the world then began to quickly heat up; recent allies in the war against fascism suddenly somehow very sharply turned into enemies. A key stage in the promotion of the Cold War was the creation of the NATO bloc in 1949.

It is quite remarkable that for one of the main initiators of the Cold War - the United States - it started very unsuccessfully. The trip of a group of two American reconnaissance diesel submarines to the shores of our Kola Peninsula, organized in 1949, was the very first in the underwater confrontation between the USA and the USSR. And this very first secret spy campaign of American submarines to the shores of the Soviet Union ended in a terrible tragedy...

FOR THE PURPOSES OF INFORMATION COLLECTION

As expected, with the creation of NATO and the beginning of the active phase of the Cold War, the US Navy Intelligence Agency increased attention to information from various sources about the state of the USSR Navy and the activities of our missile ranges. The Americans were especially concerned about the program to create nuclear missile weapons for the Soviet Navy.

Looking ahead, we note that American experts were wrong in their forecasts about the pace of creation of Soviet ballistic missiles for submarines (SLBMs). The first launch of a ballistic missile from a Soviet submarine was carried out only on September 16, 1955, but the Americans expected the creation of an “underwater fist” in the Soviet Union much earlier...

To achieve their goals, the Americans tried to collect information about the military potential of the Soviet Navy with the utmost caution. From this point of view, American submarines, sent secretly to our shores, were ideal platforms for covertly gathering information about our fleet. The calculation was obviously made for successful radio interception of important information about the activities of our fleet in combat training grounds. For these purposes, the US Navy command prepared two submarines to be sent to our northern shores - Cochino (SS-345) and Tusk (SS-426), both of the Balao class. Their main task was reconnaissance of the activities of Soviet missile sites.

Preparations for the campaign took place at the naval base in Londonderry in Northern Ireland. The submarine "Kochino" was equipped with special reconnaissance equipment, and antenna systems for radio interception were additionally installed on the submarine's wheelhouse.

It should be noted that the crews of US Navy submarines were staffed not only by ordinary submariners. Among them were specialists in the field of radio espionage. Thus, the crew of the Cochino submarine included one of the best American radio intelligence officers, Harris Austin, specially trained to decipher military communications.

At the end of July 1949, at the British naval base of Portsmouth, preparations for the campaign were completed, and in August 1949, the submarines Cochino and Task went to sea and headed for the shores of the Kola Peninsula. Thus began a reconnaissance operation involving US Navy submarines, codenamed "Kayo".

SOVIET SECRETS DID NOT SUCCEED TO THE AMERICANS

Having left the Portsmouth naval base, a week later the submarines arrived in the area to complete their assigned task. The Cochino was ahead, followed by the Task, which was supposed to cover and distract the Soviet anti-submarine forces if they discovered the Cochino. The latter took up a position approximately 150 miles from Murmansk, not far from the main bases of the Northern Fleet, which were of interest to the Americans.

Approaching the Kola Peninsula, the boats had to secretly maneuver, intercept radio communications and decipher them. Of particular interest were, of course, possible test launches of ballistic missiles from Soviet submarines.

Being at periscope depth, the submarine "Kochino" monitored the radio broadcast for a long time. However, despite the Cochino’s multi-day patrol in the southern part of the Barents Sea, American specialists were unable to achieve encouraging results.

For many days, neither the acousticians nor the radiometricians of the Cochino submarine were able to learn anything valuable about Soviet secrets. The submarine's radio reconnaissance equipment intercepted several short radio transmissions and unintelligible signals. This was the entire “catch”, despite the millions of dollars spent on organizing a reconnaissance mission of American submarines in the Barents Sea. The spy mission was essentially a failure. True, the success was that the boat was not detected by the anti-submarine forces of the Soviet Northern Fleet.

TRAGEDY

After an unsuccessful spy mission, the submarine Cochino left its patrol area to participate in a tactical anti-submarine exercise. On August 25, the commanders of the submarines Cochino and Task contacted by radio and began a joint exercise. On August 25, 1949, at 10.30, the submarine "Kochino" was under the RDP (a device for ensuring the operation of a diesel engine under water. - "NVO"), and the submarine "Task", being in several dozen cables, carried out a training search for "Kochino".

During the exercise, a sharp squall wind arose, causing short and high waves, more than 5 m. The submarine Cochino began to rock violently. At this time, a report came to the submarine’s central post about the flow of sea water into the diesel compartment through the RDP device. The reason is that the safety (float) valve of the RDP is stuck in the open position. As a result, the RDP system stopped functioning and the diesel engines stalled. Soon a powerful explosion was heard in the rear of the hull. The senior mate reported an explosion and fire in the battery pit.

In this difficult situation, the commander of the Cochino submarine, Rafael Benitez, saving people from smoke, ordered the personnel, except those who fought the fire, to go upstairs. 47 people went on deck. 12, together with the commander, were on the bridge. 18 people fought the fire under the direction of a senior mate. And soon the submariners managed to start the diesel engine.

One of the sailors was washed overboard, but he was saved thanks to the successful maneuvering of the submarine at low speed.

50 minutes after the first explosion, a second explosion was heard on the Cochino submarine. A signal for help was transmitted from Cochino to the Task submarine. An hour later the submarine "Task" arrived. A cable car was pulled between the boats and the evacuation of the crew began. The first sailor who was transferred from the Cochino died when he hit the hull of the Task submarine. 12 crew members of the submarine "Task", who took part in the rescue of the crew of "Cochino", were washed overboard by a huge wave. Six of them could not be saved.

Only nine hours after the accident, the Cochino submarine began to be towed. However, on August 26, after 00.00, another explosion of a hydrogen mixture was heard, and a fire engulfed the stern. There were 15 sailors there who left the aft compartment through the aft hatch. The burned first mate could not move. But in the end they managed to get everyone onto the bridge.

There was no hope of saving the emergency submarine Cochino, and the submarine commander R. Benitez decided to evacuate the remaining crew to the Task submarine. The latter stood alongside the Cochino submarine, having previously fired live torpedoes from the bow torpedo tubes so that they could not explode in case of an accidental impact. The sailors eventually abandoned the emergency boat Cochino; commander Rafael Benitez was the last to leave the ship.

Soon, the emergency submarine Cochino sank 100 miles from the Norwegian coast at a depth of 200 m. In turn, the submarine Task six hours later entered the roadstead of the Norwegian port of Hammerfest.

In general, the joint campaign of “Kochino” and “Task” turned out to be a fatal failure. Seven dead, ten wounded, a lost ship - this was the sad result of the very first reconnaissance operation of the US Navy submarine force off the coast of the Soviet Union during the Cold War.