The international position of Russia in modern conditions. International situation of modern Kazakhstan
Political and socio-economic situation in Russia at the present stage.
FIRST FEATURE lies in radical changes in the world and a number of influential states that have caused instability international relations at global, regional and subregional levels.
Firstly, this instability was a consequence of the destruction of the previous world order system created after World War 2, when the confrontation between the two giants the USA and the USSR was in fact the main axis around which all international life revolved.
Secondly, instability was the result of the incompleteness of the process, the formation of new states and entities international law in the place previously occupied by the countries of the world socialist system and, above all, by the Soviet Union.
Thirdly, radical changes in the world have given a powerful impetus to various forms of competition for the “privatization” of the results of these changes in their favor. The strongest and most stable states tried to take advantage of the difficult situation within the newly independent states to consolidate their own influence and build international relations exclusively in their interests.
SECOND FEATURE is to expand the conflict-generating basis at the global, regional and local levels in various spheres of life of the world community. The ideas of universal peace and prosperity proclaimed by the new political thinking turned out to be a utopia against the backdrop of a series of wars and armed conflicts.
The situation is complicated by the fact that all of the above not only did not resolve the old ones, but also caused new contradictions that expanded the conflict-forming basis.
The international community turned out to be unprepared and unable to extinguish old and prevent new conflicts in different parts of the planet and individual regions.
THIRD FEATURE lies in the increasing trend of the international situation. It is clearly manifested in the preservation and active use of military force in the foreign policy of states.
First, existence and cultivation military organization states of the world indicates that in solving new international problems the governments of these countries do not intend to give up the possibilities of the old military-force method of solving them.
Secondly, the militarization of foreign policy is clearly manifested in the desire to use any occasion to demonstrate and test forceful methods in practice.
Thirdly, the militaristic character is manifested in the desire of states, under the guise of outwardly fair and even peaceful tasks, to solve military-strategic problems.
In particular, under the guise of peacekeeping, not only military skills are improved, but also military-strategic objectives are achieved that were previously achieved through classical military means.
Example: The war between the USA and NATO in the Balkans. Under the guise of peacekeeping, they are today solving those tasks that yesterday they were scheduled exclusively for wartime and for conducting military operations with the alleged enemy. In this regard, it must be remembered that everything is subject to the laws of dialectics, including militarism. It is developing and traditionally “buries itself” deeper and deeper into the “peacekeeping camouflage”.
Fourthly, militaristic policy is manifested in the desire to maintain military-political superiority by increasing one’s own strength or causing direct damage to the military strength of a potential enemy.
Example: this is clearly manifested in the policy of the United States and other states in relation to Russia. On the one hand, they strive to consolidate and maintain their power superiority, and on the other hand, to weaken Russia’s military power as much as possible.
Today, the main thing for Russia’s opponents is that Russia cannot fight in new conditions and is not ready for the wars of the 21st century.
The fourth feature is the sharp strengthening of the role of the military-industrial complex in international life and the foreign policy of a number of states.
Thus, the instability of the international situation, its increasing militarization, which is clearly manifested in the preservation and improvement of instruments of war, the increase in the number of armed conflicts and wars, as well as the increasing role of the military-industrial complex in the foreign policy of a number of states, raises the question of Russia’s military security.
Russian history [ Tutorial] Team of authors
16.4. International situation and foreign policy
The Russian Federation, after the collapse of the USSR and the formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States, acted as the legal successor of the USSR on the world stage. Russia took the place of the USSR as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and other international organizations. However, changing geopolitical conditions - the collapse of the bipolar East-West system, dominated by the Soviet Union and the United States of America, required the development of a new foreign policy concept Russian Federation. The most important tasks were strengthening ties with leading world powers, deepening the process of integration into world economy, active work in international organizations. Another main direction was the strengthening of Russia’s position in the CIS countries and the development of fruitful political, economic and cultural cooperation with them within the framework of the Commonwealth, protecting the interests of the Russian-speaking population in these countries.
Russia and “far abroad”
The immediate consequence of the collapse USSR there was a sharp reduction in economic, cultural, scientific ties with the East European states. The Russian Federation was faced with the task of establishing with its former allies in the socialist camp new relationships based on true equality, mutual respect and non-interference in each other's affairs. Russia should have comprehended the changes in countries of Eastern Europe and define new principles of political and economic relations with each of them.
However, this process was extremely slow and with great difficulties. After the Velvet Revolutions of 1989, the countries of Eastern Europe intended to quickly join the European Economic Community (EEC) as equal partners. The settlement of relations between Russia and these states was burdened by serious financial, military and other problems that our country had to solve as the legal successor of the USSR.
The restoration of diverse ties between the Russian Federation and its former allies in the socialist camp began with the signing of mutually beneficial treaties and cooperation agreements with Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic.
The development of Russian-Yugoslav relations was hampered by the ongoing interethnic war in the Balkans. In December 1995, with the active participation of Russia, a peace treaty was signed in Paris between the republics of the former Yugoslavia, which became an important step towards ending the war. In March 1999, in connection with the problem of the autonomous province of Kosovo and NATO missile attacks on Serbia, a new stage of Russian-Yugoslav rapprochement opened. The tragic events in the Balkans showed that without Russia’s participation it is impossible to ensure international security and cooperation in Europe.
Fundamental changes have occurred in Russian relations with leading Western countries. Russia sought partnership with them and asserted this status through cooperation with the entire international community. Economic cooperation, rather than military confrontation, has become a priority in Russian foreign policy.
During the state visit of Russian President B. N. Yeltsin to the United States of America On February 1, 1992, the Russian-American Declaration on the End of the Cold War was signed, in which it was stated that Russia and the United States “do not consider each other as potential adversaries.”
In April 1992, Russia became a member of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, which pledged to provide it with financial assistance in the amount of $25 billion to carry out market reforms. Russia also signed a number of other important documents. Among them are the Charter of the Russian-American Partnership, the Memorandum of Cooperation on the Global System for the Protection of the World Community, an agreement on the joint exploration and use of space for peaceful purposes, and an agreement on the promotion and mutual protection of investments. On January 3, 1993, the Russian-American Treaty on the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (START-2) was concluded in Moscow.
In April 1993, a meeting between Presidents B. Clinton and B. I. Yeltsin took place in the United States. As a result, a special commission was formed to coordinate Russian-American relations, headed by US Vice President A. Gore and Prime Minister of the Russian Federation V. S. Chernomyrdin. In order to further develop economic ties between the two countries, the US-Russian Business Council and the CIS-US Trade and Economic Cooperation Council (CTEC) were established.
Simultaneously with economic ties, Russian-American contacts in the military field developed. In 1993, the United States abandoned the “strategic defense initiative"(SOI). In December 1994, an agreement was signed on mutual control over nuclear weapons. In March 1997, during a meeting between the presidents of the Russian Federation and the United States in Helsinki, a statement was adopted on the parameters for reducing nuclear missile weapons.
In order to strengthen relations with leading world powers, Russia sought to use the opportunities international organizations. In May 1997, an agreement on a “special partnership” between the Russian Federation and NATO was signed in Paris. In June of the same year, Russia took part in the meeting of leaders of the G7 states, which includes the USA, Germany, Great Britain, Japan, France, Italy and Canada, held in Denver (USA). The heads of these states hold annual meetings to discuss global economic policy issues. An agreement was reached to transform it into “ big eight"with the participation of the Russian Federation.
During the same period, Russia strengthened ties with leading European countries – Great Britain, Germany and France. In November 1992, a package of documents on bilateral relations between England and Russia was signed. Both powers reaffirmed their commitment to democracy and partnership. Similar bilateral agreements were reached with Germany, France, Italy, Spain and other European countries. In January 1996, Russia was admitted to the Council of Europe. This organization was created in 1949 to promote integration processes in the field of human rights. Russia joined the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Interparliamentary relations with European countries were actively developing.
In the 1990s. has changed significantly eastern policy Russia. The national and state interests of Russia required the establishment of new relations not only with the USA and Europe, but also with the industrialized countries of the Asia-Pacific region. They were supposed to ensure stability and security on the eastern borders of Russia, create favorable external conditions for its active inclusion in regional integration processes. The result of this policy was the revival of bilateral relations with China, the Republic of Korea, India, etc. Russia became a member of the Pacific Economic Cooperation (TEC) and Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) organizations.
The main issue of Russian foreign policy in Far East was to strengthen good neighborly relations with China. During his presidency, B. N. Yeltsin visited this country four times - in 1992, 1996, 1997 and 1999. Chinese President Jiang Zemin came to Moscow in 1997 and 1998. With the active participation of the Russian Federation, the “Shanghai Five” was created in 1996 to coordinate political and economic ties, which included Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.
One of the leading directions of Russian foreign policy in the east has been the improvement of relations with Japan. In October 1993, the President of the Russian Federation visited Japan on an official visit, during which a Declaration on the prospects of trade, economic, scientific and technical relations, a Memorandum on Japan’s assistance in accelerating reforms in Russia and a Memorandum on the provision of humanitarian aid Russian Federation. The following year, 1994, a Memorandum was signed on the establishment of a Russian-Japanese intergovernmental commission on trade and economic issues. In 1997–1998 Agreements were reached between Russia and Japan on expanding financial and investment cooperation, on the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and on the protection environment, disposal of Russian weapons in the Far East, etc. At the same time, the establishment of good neighborly relations with Japan was complicated by the problem of the Kuril Islands. Japan put forward the return of the islands as an indispensable condition for improving relations with Russia.
The Russian Federation pursued an active policy in the Near and Middle East. Here Russia maintained friendly relations with Egypt, Syria, Iran and Iraq. In 1994, an agreement was concluded on the basis of relations between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Turkey. As a result, by the end of the 20th century. Trade turnover between the two countries increased fivefold; in 2000, more than 100 Turkish companies operated in Russia. Russia initiated the creation of an international association - the Black Sea Economic Cooperation (BSEC).
After the collapse of the USSR, states found themselves in the background of Russian foreign policy Africa and Latin America. International meetings have almost stopped top level. An exception was the visit of Russian Foreign Minister E.M. Primakov in November 1997, during which he visited Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Costa Rica. He signed a number of documents on economic and cultural cooperation with these countries.
Commonwealth of Independent States
The principles of relations between the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States were set out in the Declaration on its formation dated December 21, 1991. Azerbaijan and Moldova, which did not ratify the Declaration, remained outside the CIS framework. In 1992, the CIS countries signed over 200 documents on friendship and cooperation, and agreements were reached on the creation of 30 coordinating bodies. The bilateral agreements concluded by Russia with the countries of the Commonwealth included obligations on mutual respect for national independence and territorial integrity, “border transparency,” cooperation in ensuring peace and security, a common economic space, environmental protection, etc. Important had an agreement on collective security these countries for a period of five years.
The CIS countries had great potential for economic cooperation. The geographical proximity and contiguity of the territories implied their natural trade, economic and political partnership. This was facilitated by many years of mutual production, scientific and technical ties, and unified energy and transport systems.
The participating states have developed common positions on such an important issue as the creation of peacekeeping forces within the Commonwealth. The leaders of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan showed the greatest consistency and activity in this. In 1994, the President of Kazakhstan N.A. Nazarbayev made a proposal to form a Eurasian Union within the former USSR. On March 29, 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Russia entered into an agreement “On deepening integration in the economic and humanitarian fields”, in 1999 - “On the customs union and common economic space”.
After the signing of the Commonwealth Charter in January 1993 in Minsk by seven CIS member countries, work began to further strengthen the forms of cooperation between them. In September 1993, an agreement was concluded on the creation Economic Union Commonwealth. The Customs Union was formed in 1997, and the Economic Council in 1999. The CIS partner countries united time-tested economic, cultural, educational ties, common international and regional interests, and the desire to ensure political, economic and social stability.
Belarus and the Russian Federation have gone through a significant, albeit difficult, path to strengthening comprehensive interstate ties. On April 2, 1996, an agreement on the formation of the Community of Belarus and Russia was signed in Moscow. In May 1997, the Community was transformed into the Union of Russia and Belarus. The Union Charter was adopted. In December 1998, Presidents B.N. Yeltsin and A.G. Lukashenko signed the Declaration on the creation of the Union State of Russia and Belarus. For 1996–1999 Russian regions signed more than 110 treaties and agreements with the government, regional authorities of Belarus and about 45 with ministries and departments of the republic.
In May 1997, agreements were signed in Kyiv with Ukraine on the division of the Black Sea Fleet and the principles of its basing in Sevastopol. At the same time, the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Partnership between Russia and Ukraine was concluded. Presidents B. Yeltsin and L. Kuchma adopted the “Program of Long-Term Economic Cooperation for 1998–2007.”
Russia has signed similar agreements on long-term economic cooperation with Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan.
The most difficult relations developed after the collapse of the USSR were with the Baltic republics of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. The governments and leaders of these states did not seek political and economic cooperation with Russia and pursued pro-Western policies. In the Baltic countries, there have been numerous cases of violation of the rights of Russian citizens, who make up a significant part of their population.
However, significant difficulties remained in the relations between the Russian Federation and other CIS countries. Many agreements on cooperation reached were not implemented. Thus, out of almost 900 documents adopted by the bodies of the Commonwealth during the first eight years of its existence, no more than one tenth was implemented. Moreover, there has been a tendency towards a reduction in political, economic and cultural relations. Each of the CIS countries was guided primarily by its own national interests. On the instability of ties within the Commonwealth negative impact influenced by the unstable balance of political forces in most CIS countries. The behavior of the leaders of the former Soviet republics not only did not contribute, but sometimes even hindered the establishment of relations of friendship, good neighborliness and mutually beneficial partnership. Suspicion manifested towards each other, mutual distrust grew. In many ways, similar phenomena were due to disagreements regarding the division of property of the former Soviet Union - the Black Sea Fleet and determining the status of Sevastopol, weapons and military equipment in Ukraine and Moldova, the Baikonur space center in Kazakhstan, etc. All this turned into severe crisis manifestations in the CIS countries: it was falling apart economy, the standard of living of the population fell.
This text is an introductory fragment. From the book Double Conspiracy. Secrets Stalin's repressions author Prudnikova Elena Anatolyevna“The international situation of the Soviet Union...” All rallies in the city of Stargorod began with this theme in the immortal novel “The Twelve Chairs”. And, I must say, they started off right. Because the international position of the Soviet Union at that time was... Until now
author Team of authors10.6. International situation and foreign policy of the Soviet state in the 1920s–1930s International relations in the era under review were extremely contradictory. First World War radically changed the balance of power between the leading Western
From the book History of Russia [Tutorial] author Team of authors16.4. International situation and foreign policy The Russian Federation, after the collapse of the USSR and the formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States, acted as the legal successor of the USSR on the world stage. Russia took the place of the USSR as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and in
From the book History of Russia. XX – beginning of XXI century. 9th grade author§ 22. INTERNATIONAL SITUATION Munich agreement. With Hitler coming to power, Germany was actively preparing for war. For 1933 – 1939 it spent twice as much on the military as Great Britain, France and Italy combined; arms production in the country during this
From the book History of Russia. XX - early XXI centuries. 9th grade author Kiselev Alexander Fedotovich§ 22. INTERNATIONAL SITUATION Munich agreement. With Hitler coming to power, Germany was actively preparing for war. For 1933-1939 it spent twice as much on the military as Great Britain, France and Italy combined; weapons production in the country during this period
From the book Course of Russian History (Lectures LXII-LXXXVI) author Klyuchevsky Vasily OsipovichInternational situation In order to understand the mood of Russian society at the moment of Peter's death, it would be useful to remember that he died, beginning the second peaceful year of his reign, fifteen months after the end of the Persian War. A whole generation has grown up
From the book Japan. Unfinished rivalry author Shirokorad Alexander BorisovichChapter 22 The international position of Russia and the Portsmouth Peace Japan could not have waged a war without relying on the financial support of British and American capital. Even before the war, English banks financed Japan and its military training. To New York currency
by Dikiy AndreyThe international situation of the Directory The international situation gave every reason for anxiety and uncertainty for the Directory. In the north, on the territory controlled by SOVNARKOM, there were two Ukrainian divisions, large and well-equipped: one in the south of Kursk
From the book The Unperverted History of Ukraine-Rus. Volume II by Dikiy AndreyInternational situation The international situation for WUNR was unfavorable. The Entente powers, with France at the head, were then the dictator in Europe and still well remembered the recent Austrian super-patriotism of those who now headed the new Ukrainian state.
From the book Volume 1. Diplomacy from ancient times to 1872. author Potemkin Vladimir PetrovichInternational position of the papacy. The techniques of Roman diplomacy were spread among the barbarian kingdoms not only by Byzantium, but also by the bearer of Roman traditions - the papal curia, which retained many of the customs and techniques of the imperial office. Influence
From the book Winter War 1939-1940 author Chubaryan Alexander Oganovich From the book History of Ukraine. Popular science essays author Team of authorsInternational situation and the problem of borders The events of World War II related to Ukraine forced Stalin to change some approaches in national policy. According to the figurative expression of O. Werth, during the war years in the Soviet Union there was a “nationalist NEP”,
From the book History of the Ukrainian SSR in ten volumes. Volume six author Team of authors1. INTERNATIONAL AND INTERNAL SITUATION OF THE COUNTRY OF THE SOVIETS V. I. Lenin on the international situation of the Soviet republics. The victories of the Red Army in 1919 radically changed the international position of the Land of Soviets. V.I. Lenin noted: “in international terms, our position
author Team of authorsChapter VII INTERNATIONAL SITUATION OF THE UNION OF THE USSR The struggle of the Soviet people to build the foundation of a socialist economy was organically combined with the further intensification of the foreign policy activities of the Soviet state. The deepest roots of his inner and
From the book History of the Ukrainian SSR in ten volumes. Volume seven author Team of authorsChapter XIV INTERNATIONAL SITUATION OF THE USSR The balance of forces in the international arena in the early 30s was determined, on the one hand, by the increased influence of the Country of Soviets, its historical achievements in socialist construction, in the implementation of consistent
From the book History of the Ukrainian SSR in ten volumes. Volume seven author Team of authors1. INTERNATIONAL SITUATION OF THE USSR On the eve of the Second World War, the Soviet Union continued to do everything in its power to ensure collective resistance to the aggressor. However, the ruling circles of the USA, England and France saw the main danger not in the expansion of fascist
PLAN-OUTLINE
conducting classes on public and state training
TOPIC 1:“Russia in the modern world and its main directions military policy. Tasks personnel to maintain combat readiness, strengthen military discipline and law and order in summer period training."
Educational goals:
— to instill in military personnel a readiness for dignified and selfless service to the Fatherland;
— to form in them a feeling of love and devotion to the Motherland, pride in belonging to the great Russian people.
Learning objectives:
— encourage the desire of military personnel to effectively perform their official duties and improve professional skills;
— familiarize military personnel with the main trends in the development of the international situation and military policy Russia.
Questions:
1. Main trends in the development of the international situation.
- Security threats to Russia
and its military policy.
Time: 4 hours
- Concept national security Russian Federation, 2000.
- Military doctrine of the Russian Federation, 2000.
- Concept of foreign policy of the Russian Federation, 2000.
- Fundamentals of the state policy of the Russian Federation on military development for the period until 2005.
- Cheban V. Current international situation and military security of Russia. Reference point. – 2002. – No. 5.
Method of implementation: story-conversation
The current stage of development of the international situation is characterized by a sharp increase in the relationship between states in the military field. This is confirmed by the signing in May 2002 of the Treaty between the United States and Russia on the Reduction of Strategic Offensive Nuclear Potentials.
However, despite the reduction in the military power of world powers, the importance of military force in international relations continues to remain significant.
An assessment of the current international situation, from the point of view of ensuring Russia's security, is associated with significant uncertainty regarding potential sources of threats, disruption of stability in the world in the future, as well as the forms in which these threats may be embodied.
In general, we can distinguish four main groups of factors that influence the formation of the international situation in the world (see Diagram 1).
TO first group These include factors influencing the reduction of the risk of a large-scale war, including a nuclear one, as well as the formation and strengthening of regional centers of power. Today, three “rings” of states have formed around Russia, occupying different positions in relation to Russia’s national interests. The first "ring" - Near Abroad– form independent states that emerged from the Soviet Union. The second “ring” is the Middle Abroad - the Northern European states and former member states of the Warsaw Treaty Organization. The third “ring” - the far abroad - consists of states in the West, South and East.
At the same time, the main geopolitical centers of power are the USA, Germany, Japan, India and China. Each of the listed centers has clearly defined its interests in the world and in specific regions, which often do not coincide with the interests of Russia.
Second group are factors influencing the ongoing expansion of NATO. The transformation of NATO reflects the US desire to maintain control over European countries and limit their sovereignty and economic interests. NATO's new Strategic Concept makes no mention of the "common human interest" or equal security for all countries, and is focused on preventive action beyond NATO member states. In this regard, the European Command has been expanded. Its area of responsibility additionally includes Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Ukraine, Belarus, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. Now on the European continent, NATO has an advantage over Russia on a scale of 3: 1 in armored vehicles, 3: 1 in artillery, 2: 1 in combat aircraft and helicopters. The Central Command area of responsibility includes the states of the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea, including Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan.
However, it should be noted that thanks to an effective foreign policy, Russia managed to somewhat change the attitude towards it. Today we can safely talk about not 19, but about 20 partner countries participating in meetings during the discussion of issues in NATO related to security in the world.
Third group factors can be called the continuing crisis trends of economic and social development states of the world community, as well as the rivalry of states for the division of spheres of influence in economics and politics. Today, countries compete with each other in all economic and political parameters. Competition has become global. In the late 90s, Russia had to give up many niches in the world market. Today, the efforts of a number of states are intensifying, aimed at weakening Russia’s position in the political and economic fields. Attempts are being made to ignore its interests when solving major problems of international political and economic relations. Conflict situations are created that can ultimately undermine international security and stability and slow down the ongoing positive changes in international relations.
In general, an analysis of the economic situation in the world indicates an emerging trend of creating three trade and economic zones under the auspices of the United States, Japan and Germany, diminishing Russia’s influence on the single economic space, and blocking its attempts and opportunities to enter the global high-tech market.
TO fourth group factors include the global spread of terrorist and extremist movements and groups. The problem of terrorism has recently become particularly acute. After September 11, 2001, it became finally clear that “ cold war"another war is over and on the agenda - with international terrorism. Russia, based on international conventions and treaties, cooperates with foreign countries in the field of combating terrorism and is one of the most reliable guarantors of international stability. It was Russia’s principled position that made it possible to form a strong anti-terrorist coalition. In the context of allied relations, the Russian leadership, together with the leadership of a number of CIS countries, made a corresponding decision. Our state, which has long been faced with terrorism, did not face the problem of choosing to support or not support efforts to destroy its lair in Afghanistan. Moreover, these actions really contributed to strengthening security on the southern borders of the country and to a relative extent contributed to improving the situation on this issue in many CIS countries.
Thus, the situation in the world and Russia’s role in the world community is characterized by a dynamic transformation of the system of international relations. The era of bipolar confrontation has ended. It has been replaced by mutually exclusive trends towards the formation of a multipolar world and the establishment of dominance of one country or group of countries on the world stage. In recent decades, Russia has been able to take advantage of additional opportunities international cooperation that emerged as a result of fundamental changes in the country. It has made significant progress along the path of integration into the system of world economic relations and has joined a number of influential international organizations and institutions. At the cost of considerable effort, Russia managed to strengthen its position in a number of fundamental areas.
- The geopolitical situation in the world at the beginning of the twentieth century was rapidly
changes and is characterized by constant clashes of political, economic and military interests of countries and coalitions of states. In this situation, many people are concerned with the question: “ Is there an immediate threat to Russia’s security, where does it come from, what is its nature, what should be the protective measures??».
Currently, Russia borders with 16 states, the length of the borders of the Russian Federation is 60 thousand 932.3 km (land – 14 thousand 509.3 km; sea – 38 thousand 807 km; river – 7 thousand 141 m; lake – 475 km ). The area of the exclusive economic zone is 8.6 million square meters. km. The border inherited from the USSR, formalized internationally, is 9 thousand 850 km. At the same time, the border that is not internationally formalized is 13 thousand 599 km. Of the 89 constituent entities of the Russian Federation, 45 are border regions. Of these, 24 subjects found themselves bordering for the first time. What processes are taking place along the perimeter of our borders?
In the north Relations between Russia and Norway are complicated by the unsettled issue of the border of the continental shelf and between economic zones.
The gradual departure from the traditional neutrality of Finland and Sweden is alarming, especially since a number of political circles in Finland have made territorial claims to Russia for part of Karelia, and certain circles in Finland are seeking unification with the Karelians, Sami and Vepsians, who are similar in language.
The Baltic states are also putting forward their territorial claims to Russia. Estonia lays claim to the Kingisep region Leningrad region, demands changes in borders in accordance with the Tartu Treaty of 1920, according to which Izborsk and Pechory were recognized as Estonian territory. Latvia claims its rights to the Pytalovsky district of the Pskov region.
In the West sources of tension may be Firstly, demands put forward in Lithuania, Poland and Germany to demilitarize the Kaliningrad region. One of the options for the possible development of the situation in the region is to establish control over Kaliningrad region on the part of international organizations under the pretext of providing it with comprehensive assistance and subsequently giving it the status of a free economic zone. At the same time, the option of its complete separation from Russia with further reorientation towards Germany or Lithuania is not excluded. In this context, Russia is assigned the role of a secondary partner in resolving this issue and in the future it is expected to be ousted from the Baltic Sea space.
Secondly, further advance of the NATO bloc to the east. The Baltic states are persistently striving to join NATO, and the leadership of the bloc provides them with comprehensive military assistance and forms new groups.
Third, Lithuania’s territorial claims to certain areas, in particular the Curonian Spit, the area in the area of Lake Vyshtitis, may meet with support among part of the highest political circles of the West. In this regard, the aggravation of regional conflicts could lead to a sharp deterioration in relations between the NATO countries, the Baltic countries and Russia.
Fourthly, The unfavorable situation for Russia in this strategic direction is aggravated by the active involvement of the countries of Eastern Europe and the Baltic states in NATO’s sphere of military influence through the Partnership for Peace program.
In the South-West We are primarily concerned about the strengthening of separatism and Islamic extremism. The presence of constantly smoldering hotbeds of conflict situations that are ready to flare up again at any moment in the Chechen Republic, between Georgia and Abkhazia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, the increase in pro-Islamic sentiments in Transcaucasia and the Central Asian republics of the CIS create dangerous preconditions for the implementation of the ideas of “true Islam” on the basis of militant nationalism.
A conflict situation, fraught with serious complications, is also emerging around oil and gas production on the continental shelf of the Caspian Sea and the transportation of extracted raw materials.
On South A characteristic feature of the situation is the desire to weaken Russia’s position in the region against the backdrop of a dominant trend of exacerbation of interstate and intrastate contradictions of an ethnic, religious and inter-clan nature. This is manifested in external support for anti-Russian actions, both through the CIS states bordering us and through anti-federal forces on Russian territory. Already today, the actions of international extremist Islamic organizations in Central Asia are influencing the Volga and Ural regions Russia. The reasons for the emergence of a conflict situation here are interstate and intrastate contradictions in Tajikistan and Afghanistan.
Turkey, with the support of international monopolies and some Transcaucasian states, is preventing the Russian project to deliver oil and gas to Europe from Central Asia and Transcaucasia through the port of Novorossiysk, trying to implement its own, according to which oil and gas pipelines will pass through its territory with access to the Mediterranean Sea. In the future, the threat may increase if the emerging trend towards confrontation with the Islamic world along an “arc of instability” from Yugoslavia to Tajikistan develops.
The emergence of direct threats to Russia's security in this area, according to many researchers and experts, should be expected in 2007–2010.
In the East Russia's national interests are contradicted by claims from Japan, China and the United States to divide spheres of influence and seize a leading role in the region, the territorial claims of these countries to our state, and the predatory plunder of maritime resources in the Russian economic zone.
In Japan's foreign policy, there is a clear tendency to use economic and political levers in order to resolve the territorial problem favorably for Japan. It considers the Russian islands of Iturup, Kunashir, Shikotan, Habomai to be its own and calls the remaining Kuril Islands and South Sakhalin controversial.
The development of relations between the Korean states poses a serious danger. Military conflict between Northern and South Korea may lead to a clash of interests of the United States, China and Russia.
Separately, it is necessary to analyze the position of China, which continues to strengthen its role in the world, the region and increase its military-economic potential. It can be assumed that China will emerge in the long term as a super power of the second rank. Latest events in Yugoslavia and Afghanistan forced China to more closely coordinate with Russia its efforts to counter the ideas of a unipolar world and US attempts to implement them. However, in relations with Russia, Beijing seeks to obtain unilateral benefits and advantages. China is rapidly gaining economic and military force. At the same time, it is burdened by the problems of rapidly growing overpopulation and lack of natural resources. Today, China's billion-plus population is growing at 1.1% a year, while the economy is growing even faster, at more than 10% a year. For these reasons, in some border areas of Primorye there are 1.5 - 2 times more Chinese than the Russian-speaking population. Despite the agreements concluded with Russia, China continues to put forward claims to a number of Russian territories (part of the territory of the Chita and Amur regions, Khabarovsk and Primorsky territories). Refusal to satisfy territorial claims or an attempt to oppress a huge and practically insubordinate Russian laws Chinese diaspora in the Far East may in the future, under certain circumstances, serve as a reason for resolving controversial issues by force.
In addition, in 5–10 years, it is possible that serious contradictions will arise between China and Russian allies in the Central Asian region, as well as between China and Mongolia.
The above and other processes that today
observed in the world community and near the borders of Russia, make it possible to
some conclusions characterizing the state of its national security and the main directions of military policy at the beginning of the twentieth century.
Firstly, in the modern international environment, dynamic, sometimes radical changes are taking place. On the ruins of a bipolar world, based on the confrontation of two superpowers, new structures of international relations are being formed. Real material and spiritual prerequisites are being created for motivated intervention by the United States, Turkey and other countries in areas located in close proximity to Russia.
Secondly, In general, the international situation in the world remains difficult. The construction of a new world order is accompanied by an intensification of the struggle for spheres of influence, sources of raw materials and sales markets, which can lead to the emergence of new centers of tension and conflicts that directly affect Russia’s national interests and affect stability in the country.
Third, The most real threats to Russia's security are: the approach of NATO's military infrastructure to the borders of Russia, the possible escalation of armed conflicts in the Transcaucasus and Central Asia, territorial claims to Russia from a number of states. Any conflict near large oil reserves and transport routes can be used for a military invasion of Russian territory.
Fourthly, Russia does not “fit” into the current model of globalization on Western terms. In this situation, we should not forget that the priority of using military force to solve controversial problems remains an essential feature of modern reality. In the United States and a number of NATO countries, there are certain circles of politicians and military men who rely not on the peaceful negotiation process, but on brute military force, which was clearly demonstrated in Yugoslavia in the spring of 1999.
Fifthly, in the period until 2010, the main threat to Russia will be military conflicts in its neighboring countries. Here, an escalation of armed conflicts in the Caucasus is possible with their internationalization due to the intervention of NATO countries, as well as in Ukraine, Belarus and Transnistria, where the instability of the internal political situation creates a favorable situation for military intervention in the internal affairs of these states or other countries under the guise of peacekeeping activities. Subsequently and until 2015, coordinated local wars and armed conflicts may arise in Russia’s traditional spheres of influence with the threat of their escalation into a regional war.
Thus, based on the current situation in the world and the fact that the highest priority of Russian state policy is to protect the interests of the individual, society and the state, it is necessary to outline the main goals of Russia’s military policy at the present stage(see diagram 2).
- Ensuring reliable security of the country, preserving and strengthening its sovereignty and territorial integrity, strong and authoritative positions in the world community, which best meet the interests of the Russian Federation as a great power, as one of the influential centers of the modern world and which are necessary for the growth of its political and economic , intellectual and spiritual potential.
- Influencing global processes in order to form a stable, fair and democratic world order, built on generally accepted norms of international law, including, first of all, the goals and principles of the UN Charter, on equal and partnership relations between states.
- Creating favorable external conditions For progressive development Russia, the rise of its economy, improving the standard of living of the population, successful implementation of democratic reforms, strengthening the foundations of the constitutional system, respect for human rights and freedoms.
From the chain of political upheavals in Latin America to the endless political crisis in Great Britain. From a series of armed attacks on tankers in the Persian Gulf to sharp fluctuations in US-China relations.
Against this complex background of chronic instability and volatility in the international situation, Russian foreign policy stood out especially clearly. Even the most irreconcilable critics of Moscow are forced to admit that in the past year, the Russian line in international affairs has been characterized by continuity and consistency. Russia does not look like a convenient partner to everyone on the world stage, but it cannot be blamed for being an unreliable and unpredictable partner. This undeniable advantage over some other great powers earns the respect not only of our friends and allies, but also of our adversaries and adversaries.
Apparently, the coming 2020 will be characterized by a further decline in the stability of the world system. I would, of course, like to be wrong, but the energy of the collapse of the old system of international relations has clearly not yet been completely exhausted. It is unlikely that it will be possible to stop the chain reaction of decay so quickly - this is not a task for a year or two, but for a long historical perspective. And the task is not for one or a group of the world’s leading countries, but for the entire international community as a whole, which, for a variety of reasons, is not yet ready to take it seriously.
Under these conditions, a natural temptation may arise to limit Russia’s participation in international affairs as much as possible, to isolate itself from the unpredictable and dangerous outside world, and to focus on solving internal tasks. It is understandable that we do not want to “import instability”, to become unwitting hostages of those negative processes and trends in world politics that we are unable to manage and which no one is able to control. The public’s request for the country’s leadership to focus on our internal problems, which, unfortunately, we still have in abundance, is also understandable.
But the strategy of self-isolation, even temporary and partial, is dangerous in at least two respects. First, consistent self-isolation is virtually impossible in today's interdependent world, with rare exceptions such as North Korea. And for Russia, deeply integrated into global political, economic and social processes, any attempts at self-isolation will inevitably mean abandoning many of the most important gains of our foreign policy over the past 30 years. And, moreover, they will significantly slow down the solution of those internal tasks on which it is proposed to focus.
Russia does not look like a convenient partner to everyone on the world stage, but it cannot be blamed for being an unreliable and unpredictable partner.
Secondly, the strategy of self-isolation will actually also mean Russia’s withdrawal from active participation in the creation of a new system of international relations, in the construction of a new world order. And the creation of this new world order is inevitable in any case - the main questions are only in the timing and the price that humanity will have to pay for this world order. When the era of instability is left behind and global controllability is restored in one way or another, we will have to play by the rules developed by someone else and reflecting the interests not of Russia, but of other participants in world politics.
Therefore, Russian foreign policy in the coming year, it seems, should not be limited to solving primarily current, operational tasks in various regions of the world, although the importance of these tasks cannot be overestimated. But no less important is the development of new principles, models and mechanisms of international cooperation for the future. Figuratively speaking, if today it is too early to start building the building of a new world order, then it is possible and necessary to select individual “bricks” and even entire building blocks for this future building today. In this complex work, Russian foreign policy has something to rely on.
For example, in Syria, our country has accumulated unique experience multilateral diplomacy, which makes it possible to bring together the positions of seemingly the most irreconcilable opponents and achieve a sustainable reduction in the intensity of military confrontation. Russia has managed to achieve in Syria what many not so long ago considered essentially unattainable. Obviously, in the coming year it is worth trying to extend this practice to the Middle East region as a whole, consistently developing and specifying the Russian concept of a regional collective security system, which is certainly in demand in the Middle East.
In Asia, Russia and its partners were able to take serious steps towards building a fundamentally new democratic and open system of international institutions. Among recent achievements, it is enough to mention the expansion of the SCO, the promotion of the BRICS+ concept, the activation of the trilateral RIC format (Russia, India, China), impressive progress towards connecting the development of the EAEU and the Chinese “One Belt, One Road” project. Apparently, filling new institutional forms with specific content is especially important here. Russia, hosting the BRICS and SCO summits on its territory in 2020, could confirm its leading role in expanding the “project portfolio” of these organizations.
Russian-Chinese relations are confidently becoming an influential factor in the entire system of international relations. Further increasing the level of coordination between Russia and China in the international arena, including in the field of security, will continue to strengthen their authority and influence in world affairs.
In the European direction, although the outgoing 2019 did not become a turning point for the better for Moscow, it nevertheless brought certain positive results. Russia returned to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. It was possible to achieve common approaches between Russia and the West to resolve the political crisis in Moldova. After a long break, the mechanism of the “Normandy Four” summits on the settlement in Donbass began to work. There has been progress in trilateral negotiations with Ukraine and the European Union on energy issues.
Europe is entering a period of deep rethinking of its regional integration model. And it’s not just about the UK’s upcoming exit from European Union. On the agenda are pressing issues of socio-economic development, regionalization, security problems, etc. Against this background, a serious political dialogue on the future of relations between Russia and Europe in all strategic areas of our relations is becoming more than in demand. And such a dialogue must begin without delay.
The 2020 election campaign is already in full swing in the United States - not the best best time to try to begin to mend our bilateral relations. But we cannot agree with those who believe that Moscow should take a pause in these relations, awaiting the results of the presidential elections and the US exit from the deep political crisis that split American society three years ago. History shows that waiting for a “favorable moment” can last forever, and there will always be plenty of good reasons to extend the pause again and again. If contacts with the US executive branch are objectively difficult today, then we need to increase our activity along other lines, including on the second track of our relations.
In relations with Africa, 2019 was a breakthrough year - the Sochi Russia-Africa summit not only demonstrated the existence of mutual interest in developing cooperation, but also revealed the potential of such cooperation. Now the main thing is that the received impulse does not go into the sand, and therefore 2020 in this sense should be a year of practical steps.
These and many other problems will face foreign policy Russia in 2020. Our country has already demonstrated the skills of an effective crisis manager, capable of coping with the most serious current challenges to regional and global security. Russia has the opportunity, in addition to these skills, to also demonstrate the abilities of an experienced design engineer who is ready, together with his partners, to design individual components and entire units of a complex and as yet unformed mechanism of the new world order.
2020 will be held under the banner of the 75th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War and World War II. Looking back, it is impossible not to note that already in 1945, far from us, the victorious powers, despite deep differences on the most fundamental issues of world development, were able to agree not only on general rules games on the world stage, but also about creating the whole system international institutions that guarantee the preservation of global and regional stability. This system, with all its shortcomings and imperfections, has served humanity for many decades.
Today, the international community faces challenges comparable in scale to those of the middle of the last century. It would be hoped that modern politicians, like their great predecessors, will recognize their historical responsibility and demonstrate statesmanship in the interests of resolving current problems modernity.
Loading...
