Historian and diplomat Yuri Rubinsky on the global challenges of the 21st century. "Relapse of the Cold War Relapses of the Cold War

08.07.2020

Why is the world of today rapidly changing and will never be the same again? What lessons can mankind learn from the mistakes of the past? What will be the new technological order of the world economy? About this during the discussion of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy (SVOP) in cultural center ZIL thought Doctor of Historical Sciences, chief researcher at the Institute of Europe RAS Yuri Rubinsky. The meeting was moderated by Fyodor Lukyanov, Editor-in-Chief of Russia in Global Affairs magazine, Chairman of the SVOP Presidium. "Lenta.ru" recorded the main theses of Yuri Rubinsky's speech.

Baby boomer riot

Now Europe and the world are undergoing tectonic processes that bear little resemblance to past upheavals, for example, the events of 1968 in France. Then "Red May" became a complete surprise for everyone. There is an interesting coincidence: on the eve of the French Revolution of 1848, which developed into the European “spring of nations”, an article “France is bored” was published in Paris. And before the May events of 1968, an article with exactly the same title appeared in the French press.

The detonator of the events of May 1968 in France was dissatisfied educated youth who rebelled against the former hierarchical way of life. It was the revolt of the post-war baby boomers against their fathers, who tried to rebuild the old traditional Europe after the Second World War. Similar processes took place in the United States, where student unrest coincided with the movement for racial equality and the struggle against the Vietnam War.

The youth rebellion of the late 1960s failed because it was not supported by a frightened middle class that remained in conservative positions. For example, in Paris, at the call of President de Gaulle, a million people went to the Champs Elysees. In addition, the European political elites were able to draw into their ranks the most active leaders of the protest.

Things are quite different now. The current establishment is not capable of calling under its banner individual leaders of the rebellious masses. Under the influence of globalization processes, political elites have long become transnational and have become even more detached from their fellow citizens. In addition, the mechanism of the modern world economy does not provide for any new positive program.

Those who today have been brought to the crest of the protest wave (Donald Trump in the USA, Marine Le Pen in France) are often members of the elite themselves, although they position themselves as a counter-elite. Their ideological foundation is blurred, and the election program is a kind of vinaigrette of ultra-right and radical left slogans.

Angry townspeople

The modern rebellious youth, which served as the fuse of all the "color revolutions", lacks both its own real program and clear slogans and a clear alternative. Now, not tens of thousands, but tens of millions of people have been drawn into the process of creating history - in addition to young people, a large middle class has joined the protest, now playing a key role in socio-political life.

The reason was that this class, previously considered a bulwark of stability, is being eroded. This is a side effect of scientific and technological progress: between different social groups, the income gap is again widening. For example, in previously prosperous Europe, many inhabitants now recognize that in the near future they are unlikely to be able to maintain their former level of well-being.

The current middle class is confused and disoriented, and its discontent is channeled in support of the ideas of nationalism, xenophobia and social-populist demagogy, and in the Arab countries - even radical Islam. A sign of the modern age is that people around the world are turning to their past. On this occasion, there is a wonderful quote from the classic: “When people encounter the new and the unknown, they cling to the fragments of the well-known past in superstitious fear and create new acts of the tragedy of the future in the costumes and scenery of previous eras.”

Today the world is faced with the fact that deepening social inequality is causing active protest among the general population. It is becoming more and more difficult to manage these masses of people - at least, the current elites are no longer capable of this. The decision-making methods and rules that they now practice are opaque, incomprehensible and completely unacceptable to most people.

relapse cold war

Following the socio-political processes within states, international relations are becoming less and less manageable today. Not only Western-style liberal democracies, but also odious authoritarian-totalitarian regimes are now forced to take into account mass moods. World politics has become less predictable, since many of the motives for certain actions of individual countries are often incomprehensible to their partners.

Now we are witnessing a relapse of the old Cold War, but much more dangerous and less manageable. The confrontation between the USSR and the USA, despite the Caribbean and Berlin crises, took place according to clear and understandable rules of the game. It is known from game theory that any relationship between states is realized in three versions: a zero-sum game, when one side wins completely and the other loses outright (win-lose); both parties win, but to different degrees: one more and the other less (win-win); both sides lose completely (lose-lose).

The Cold War combined all these schemes in various proportions, and its current relapse tends to do the same. But the world has changed: if in the nineties it was believed that the entire system of international relations could be built on a win-win basis, now this is not at all obvious. It's not even that different countries have different objective economic or geopolitical interests.

It turned out that, despite globalization and economic unity, the current world is mentally divided, because it simultaneously lives in different eras with different systems values. Now the government of each country is trying to show that no one can dictate its conditions to it, since their own citizens simply will not understand any compromises and will be taken as a manifestation of weakness. In addition, everyone fears that by making concessions on any issue, they risk getting a more serious challenge in the future.

Because of this, any attempts at concluding package deals, which often helped to find an acceptable way out of conflict situations during the Cold War, are now hopelessly blocked. It is very difficult for global players to negotiate on a win-win basis; any geopolitical bargaining in the spirit of "Syria in exchange for Ukraine" is absolutely impossible. From now on, each conflict node in international relations has its own laws of development, often the most unpredictable.

Photo: Zhang Naijie / Xinhua / Globallookpress.com

Ominous Shadow 1914

Let's not forget how the First World War began more than a hundred years ago, which, despite all the contradictions between the great powers, in fact, no one seriously wanted. Then it was believed that a world conflict was impossible: firstly, in the conditions of the triumph of scientific and technological progress, it is simply economically unprofitable to fight, and secondly, all countries have accumulated so many diverse and destructive weapons that no one will dare to use them. As we know, both of these arguments were refuted by further developments.

The argument of a hundred years ago is strikingly similar to the complacent mood of the world elites in the nineties: the Cold War is over, the world is rapidly globalizing, developing countries make a phenomenal economic breakthrough. But now, as we see, a completely different world order is emerging, very different from what many aspired to twenty years ago.

Of course, nuclear weapons played a decisive role in the fact that the Cold War never escalated into a real military conflict. But its former deterrent is no longer obvious, as nuclear military technology continues to spread across many countries, some of them highly unstable. A new arms race is growing in the world, although our leadership assures that it will not allow Russia to be drawn into it.

But the problem is not only in our country - all over the world, after the Great Recession of 2008-2009, which became a "crisis of overconsumption", economic resources were greatly depleted. The growth rate of the world economy has declined significantly, and there is even a theory that the world is waiting for "secular stagnation."

The current tension in international relations that has arisen in recent years is serious and for a long time. This is potentially a very dangerous situation, because, as in 1914, there are many different contradictions in the world today, and no one wants to give in. One can only hope that the modern political elites, unlike their predecessors a hundred years ago, will show wisdom, common sense and sober calculation, not allowing the catastrophic scenario to materialize.

Crisis of the development model

Almost all major countries are experiencing a severe crisis of the former development model. For example, in the United States, this is clearly shown by the current presidential campaign, when yesterday's outcasts turned out to be among the candidates - the ultra-right Trump and the radical left Sanders. China, whose economic development repeats the "Japanese miracle" of 1960-1980, has also exhausted the possibility of further rapid growth due to cheap labor, imports of technology and capital, and exports of goods.

Photo: David I. Gross / Zuma / Globallookpress.com

For more than twenty years, the Japanese economy has been unable to get out of the most severe stagnation, and there is no need to talk about the state of today's Russia at all - and so everything is clear. All these countries, as well as Europe, India and Brazil, are on the verge of breaking the old model of development, when the ruling elites have become so detached from their compatriots that they have become unable to respond to the new challenges of the time.

Now there is a lot of talk about the so-called "fourth industrial revolution", whose achievements are designed for the individual consumer. But the most important thing for the future of mankind is the continuation of energy transit. Britain's first industrial revolution late XVIII century was the era of coal and steam, the second revolution in the second half of the 19th century was associated with electricity, oil and gas, and the third was the information revolution of the second half of the 20th century, which has not ended to this day.

The global change in the technological order in each country and in each region of the world will occur in its own way. Those states that will carry out this process earlier and more successfully than others will ultimately secure a leading position for themselves in the coming world of the 21st century.

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" 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 economy was already exhausted and could not withstand. in the main sectors of the economy, low labor productivity, the cessation of economic growth - all this became evidence of a deep crisis in the communist system. Under such conditions, another change in the political leadership of the USSR took place. foreign policy of the SRS to the policy of the SSR.

Mikhail Sergeevich Gorbachev (b 1931) - Soviet party and statesman From 1955 on Komsomol and party work in the Stavropol region of the RSFSR U1978-1985 Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU Z1980r member of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU, since 1985 General Secretary Central Committee of the CPSU U1988-1990 Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR In 1990-1991. President of the USSR The 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 Nobel Peace Prize winner for 1990 August 19-21, 1991 Gorbachev was removed from power orthodoxly by senior officials who , trying to keep the Union unchanged, carried out a coup d'état Remained President of the USSR until December 25, 1991, but had no real power and could not stop the process of the final collapse of the USSR From December 1991, President of the International Fund for Social, Economic and political research(\"Gorbachev Fund \") U1996 r took part in the presidential elections in the Russian Federation, but received less than 1% of the vote.

The main directions of Moscow's new policy were to soften relations with the West and promote the settlement of regional conflicts. Proclaiming a course for the implementation of new political thinking in international relations, recognition of the priority of universal human interests over class ones, and also that a nuclear war cannot be a means of achieving political, ideological and other purposes, the Soviet leadership entered into an open dialogue with the West A series of meetings took place between M. Gorbachev and R. Reagan actual problems international relations and came to the conclusion that a nuclear war should not be unleashed, because there will be no winners in this war

New York, 1988) laid the foundations for mutual understanding between the USSR and the USA with the achievement specific solutions 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 of the latest nuclear missiles of medium and shorter range (500-5000 km) from European territory. It was assumed that the USSR and the USA would completely destroy two classes of missiles. post-war period, the USSR agreed to control over the elimination of weapons. 1987, Soviet-American negotiations began on limiting and ending nuclear tests. cold war soviet critical

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

The American-Soviet peace dialogue continued under the presidency of George W. Bush (1989-1993), in particular, there were negotiations on the reduction of strategic offensive arms (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 George W. 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 rejection of their production. The documents noted that the period of confrontation between West and East is giving way to partnership and cooperation.

The negotiation process covered a wide range of weapons 1989 in Vienna, multilateral negotiations began on the reduction of armed forces and conventional weapons in Europe forces in Europe, which determined a radical reduction in the conventional forces of NATO and the ATS.

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

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

Changes in the political climate in Eastern Europe led to the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991 and the withdrawal in subsequent years of Soviet troops from Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, Germany, 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 1989-1990. for the first time in the republics of the USSR, elections were held on a multi-party basis National-patriotic forces pushed the communists out of power The newly elected Supreme Council of Ukraine on July 16, 1990 adopted a Declaration on the 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'état in the USSR (August 19-20, 1991), the Communist Party, a participant in the rebellion, was outlawed on August 24, 1991 The Verkhovna Rada Ukraine adopted the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine, and on December 1, 1991, an All-Ukrainian referendum approved it with more than 90% of votes. On December 8, 1991, in Belovezhskaya Pushcha, the leaders of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus announced the termination of the existence of the USSR as a subject of international law. A new association was created - Spivdruzhnist of Independent States ( CIS), which is more a political declaration than a real treaty, the successor of the USSR and Russia declared itself responsible for all the agreements signed by Moscow except for Russia they will lose nuclear weapons within 7 years On the basis of these agreements, residents B. Yeltsin and George W. Bush in Washington signed in the same year the text of the START-1 treaty, according to which the United States and the states former USSR reduce strategic offensive weapons by 50% for 7 years, symbolized the end of the confrontation between the USSR and the US Front between the SRSR and the USA.

The final end of the period\"Cold War \" is:

o the 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 the unification of Germany and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact (July 1991 p)

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

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

With the collapse of communism, the bipolarity of the world and the confrontation along the line\"East-West \" disappeared, but the number of international conflicts did not decrease. The conflict in the Persian Gulf became especially dangerous. , set the date for the withdrawal of Iraqi troops from Kuwait - January 15, 199 1 g Multinational armed forces under the leadership of the American command carried out the operation\"Desert Storm \" against Iraq and liberated Kuwait.

The changes that took place in international life in the early 90s led to a new alignment of forces in the world. Russia was unable to support\"pro-Soviet \" regimes in Asia and Africa. Israeli Although the process of normalizing Israel's relations with the Arab countries is constantly hampered, the paths to unleashing this long-term conflict are outlined quite clearly Conflicts in Cambodia, Angola, Mozambique were generally resolved, the apartheid regime in South Africa was liquidated in 1990 However, a just and secure world community is still far away On the territory of the former USSR and the camps of socialism, local conflicts have arisen and continue to smolder (the war of Russia against Chechnya, the Abkhazian-Georgian conflict, the Armenian-Azerbaijani clashes in Karabakh, the unsettled relations after the bloody clashes between Moldova and the so-called Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic, interethnic conflicts on the territory of its former Yugoslavia, etc. Yugoslavia too soon).

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 Society signed a new agreement on the European Union, on the basis of which in 1999 the creation of an economic and monetary union was completed. The community also plans to develop common defense policy in the field of security and introduce a single European citizenship In 1997, the EU introduced a single European citizenship, 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, Spain.

France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal and Finland) The former Soviet bloc countries are trying to get out of Russia's sphere of influence through gradual integration into the EU and the ATO However, the level of their economic development does not allow Western Europeans to open the door to the EU for everyone In May 2004 Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovenia, Poland, Ugorshchina, Czech Republic joined the EU on January 1, 2007 Bulgaria and Romania became full members of the EU About the North Atlantic bloc, then in early 1994 the United States proposed a program to NATO of the world \", u in provides for a gradual rapprochement of the countries of Eastern Europe 1997, the Atlantic leadership considered applications for the entry into NATO of Poland, the Czech Republic, Hungary and accepted them into NATO in 1999 In May 2004, Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania became NATO members , Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia In July 1997 in Madrid, President of Ukraine Leonid Kuchma signed the Charter on special relations between Ukraine and NATO, which provides to expand relations between Kyiv and Brussels in matters of European security Y1997, the NATO Information and Documentation Center in Ukraine was opened in Kyiv, and the NATO Liaison Office in Ukraine was founded in 1999. No 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, the State Council for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration of Ukraine was established in 2002 and the National Center for Euro-Atlantic Integration of Ukraine in 2003, held a meeting of the Commission\"Ukraine-NATO\" in Istanbul in 2004 and President Yushchenko declared Ukraine's entry into NATO in April 2005 as one of the main priorities of the new government during the meeting\"Ukraine-NATO \" (Vilnius, Lithuania) At the level of foreign ministers, a dialogue has officially begun regarding Ukraine's membership in NATO. However, the political instability ness in Ukraine, the foreign policy complications of the brakes on the European integration processes of Ukraine aggravate 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 is assigned the role of the main guarantor of international security.

The US foreign policy has become the most important factor influencing the development of international relations in the post-bipolar era. The Republican administration of George W. and a qualitative strengthening of the power of the army 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 limitations of the ABM Treaty, announcing in 2001 unfolds National system Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense (NMD) The Bush administration actively promoted the accession to NATO of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe and the Baltics and the Baltics.

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 koala police force, which in October 2001 launched a war against the Taliban government in Afghanistan, gave refuge to terrorists \ "Al-Qaddi" characteristic feature the foreign policy of the administration of George W. Bush Jr. with a melting one-sidedness in making decisions on international problems, which, in particular, manifested itself in the decision in March 2003 of the war against Iraq, contrary to the position of the UN and many states. This war complicated the sons of the United States with France, Germany, and others by states US-Russian relations developed ambiguously Support Russian Federation US antiterrorist activities after the September 2001 events contributed to a significant improvement in relations between the two states, but the condemnation by the Russian leadership of the US war, human rights violations in Russia, Moscow's desire to play a dominant role in the post-Soviet space, which led to Russian-Ukrainian contradictions through Tuzla, Russian- the Georgian war in South Ossetia in the fall of 2008, the energy (gas) war against Ukraine in late 2008 - early 2009, spoiled bilateral US-Russian relations In the Persian Gulf, international tension caused by military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq is intensified by US-Russian contradictions around Iran's nuclear program, Russia continues to assist (sell equipment) in the construction of an Iranian nuclear power plant, the waste from which can be used to manufacture nuclear weapons, while the United States strongly opposes development Iran's nuclear program The US war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, periodically escalates into a crisis situation, and so on. - all this turns the Near and Middle East into an explosive regional region.

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

Some of the 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 6-8, 2000 at the level of heads of state and orders. human rights But humanity is only standing in the way of fulfilling 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 to combat and With the epidemic of this disease, an effective response to AIDS in poor countries requires quite a significant amount - up to 10 billion US dollars annually Alaska.

The UN is working to alleviate the situation of refugees who are forced to seek rescue and assistance abroad. In 2006, there were up to 10 million people who were under the patronage of the UN Refugee Agency The organization maintains its offices in Afghanistan and Sudan as a whole with 18 UN peacekeeping missions in 2004, seven were in Africa and two were 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 the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), formed in 1960. Of its twelve members, 10 belong to the countries of the Afro-Asian expanse.

An important role in the dialogue between civilizations as a representative of the Islamic world is played by the League, founded back in 1945. Arab States, which includes 22 Arab countries This organization is an important factor in opposing the international political situation in the Middle East 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 founded in 1967.

In order to overcome the specific African problems, strengthening the role of Africa in the modern world, in 2002 the former 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 protracted 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 "Big Eight", which includes Japan, discusses the key world problems and ways to overcome them. in the Middle East and Iraq, as well as the situation in Africa

The article is devoted to the analysis of the process of formation of a new international system and the definition of Russia's place in it. The author of the article identifies several stages in the evolution of the international system of the late XX - early XXI century. As a result, the author points to the need to develop a new concept of the world order in Russian political science. The article presents the author's conceptual idea of seeing 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 20th 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: together 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 Westphalian peace and its principles were undermined.

However, throughout the last decade of the 20th 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 flared up between the two main concepts of the world order: the concepts of unipolarity and multipolarity.

Naturally, in light of the just-ended Cold War, the first thing to come to mind was a unipolar world order backed 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 superpowerism disappeared from the world economic and geopolitical proscenium in its traditional sense: “During the “cold 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 this status. As a result, the role of the United States was not only, but one of several pillars of the new world order.

The American idea was challenged. The main opponents of the US monopoly in the world have become United Europe, China, Russia, India and Brazil, which is gaining more and more strength. For example, China, followed by Russia, adopted the concept of a multipolar world in the 21st century as an official foreign policy doctrine. A kind of struggle has unfolded against the threat of unipolar domination, for maintaining a multipolar balance of power as the main condition for stability in the world. In addition, it is also obvious that over the years since the liquidation of the USSR, the United States has actually failed, despite its desire for world leadership, to assert itself in this role. Moreover, they had to experience the bitterness of failure, they "stuck" where, it would seem, there were 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 failed to stabilize the situation in the world.

Events of the late XX - early XXI century that changed the world

While in scientific circles there were disputes about the structure new system international relations, a number of events that took place at the turn of the century, in fact, themselves dotted all the i's.

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 that time, the idea of unipolarity led by the United States categorically dominated world politics, 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 dictatorship in relation to the actions of the Russian Federation by the world community.

This was largely due to the fact that the foreign policy of the Russian Federation in the early 1990s had a clear “pro-American vector”. Other trends foreign policy appeared approximately after 1996, thanks to the replacement of the Westernizer A. Kozyrev as Minister of Foreign Affairs by the statesman E. Primakov. The difference in the positions of these figures led not only to a change in the vector of Russian politics - it becomes more independent, but many analysts started talking about the transformation of the model of Russian foreign policy. Changes introduced by E.M. Primakov, may well be called the consistent "Primakov Doctrine". “Its essence: to interact with the main world actors, without rigidly adhering to anyone.” According to the Russian researcher Pushkov A., “this is the “third way”, which allows avoiding the extremes of the “Kozyrev doctrine” (“the position of America’s junior partner and for everything or almost everything”) and the nationalist doctrine (“to distance oneself from Europe, the United States and Western institutions-- NATO, the IMF, the World Bank"), to try to become an independent center of gravity for all those who did not have relations with the West, from the Bosnian Serbs to the Iranians."

After Yevgeny Primakov's resignation from the post of prime minister in 1999, the geostrategy he defined was basically continued - in fact, there was no other alternative to it and it corresponded to Russia's geopolitical ambitions. Thus, Russia has finally succeeded in formulating its own geostrategy, which is conceptually quite justified and quite practical. It is quite natural that the West did not accept it, since it was ambitious: Russia still intends to play the role of a world power and is not going to agree to the downgrading of 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 is actually collapsing in the world. In political and scientific circles, the United States is gradually beginning to talk about moving away from hegemonic politics and the need to establish US global leadership, supported by the closest associates 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.

In Putin finally approves the idea of a multipolar world as a base 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 US does not want to give up its leadership. As a result, a real geopolitical war is played out, and the main battles are played out in the post-Soviet space (for example, “color revolutions”, gas conflicts, the problem of NATO expansion at the expense of a number of countries in the post-Soviet space, etc.).

The second stage is defined by some researchers as “post-American”: “We are living 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 has a leading role. South Africa on the African continent and other pillars - centers of power. However, this is not a “world after the US”, much less without the US. It is a world where, as a result of the rise and rise of other global centers of power, the relative importance of America's role is declining, as has been observed in the global economy 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, raising the level of education, information "armament", the historical memory of peoples. Hence, in particular, there is a rejection of the American version of world history.

3. 2008 - present - the third stage, first of all, was marked by the coming to power in Russia of a new president - 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 in this phase:

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

secondly, there was a final alignment of forces at the interstate level: it became obvious that the new system has completely different foundations and Russia can 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 regulatory framework in the field of security. The United States, on the contrary, shows disdain for the UN, contributing to the "interception" of a number of its functions by other organizations - NATO in the first place. American politicians put forward the idea of creating new international organizations according to the political and ideological principle - based on the conformity of their future members to democratic ideals. American diplomacy stimulates anti-Russian tendencies in the politics of Eastern and South-Eastern Europe and tries to create regional associations in the CIS without Russia's participation,” 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 a weakening of the overall controllability (governance) of the world system." The model that existed before was adapted to take into account the interests of the United States, since Russia had been busy rebuilding its own forces for a long time 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. The American researcher A. Cohen writes: “... Russia has noticeably tightened its international policy and, in achieving its goals, is increasingly relying on force, and not on international law… Moscow has stepped up its anti-American policies and rhetoric and is ready to challenge US interests wherever and whenever possible, including in the High North.”

Such statements form the current context of statements about Russia's participation in world politics. aspirations Russian leadership limiting US dictates in all international affairs is obvious, but thanks to this, there is an increase in competitiveness international environment. Nevertheless, "reducing the intensity of contradictions is possible if all countries, and not just Russia, realize the importance of mutually beneficial cooperation and mutual concessions" . A new global paradigm is needed further development 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 "transitional period", the period "after the Cold War" has ended in the world. The second decade of the 21st century was met by the world system structured in a completely new way.

The world in the late XX - early XXI centuries has undergone a fundamental transformation. The very nature of international relations has changed. Obviously, the definition of 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, cardinal changes took place in international relations, which allow us to speak about the formation of the following new patterns:

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

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

interpenetration of foreign and domestic policies;

Availability global problems, for the first time in history, endangering the very existence of mankind, which necessitates cooperation within the entire world community.

World history has not yet known such a global interconnected and interdependent structure. It becomes obvious the need to develop a new concept of the world order. The emerging system, of course, requires new approaches to its understanding. Today, as Russian political scientist E.Ya. Batalov, “the time of classical world-system structures is coming to an end and the era of non-classical<…>world systems and world orders that do not fit into the usual<…>schemes of the 19th and 20th centuries. Today, these systems and orders can only be described as probabilistic, because the tendencies that determine them have manifested themselves by now with varying - often low - degrees of distinctness. Among the "probabilistic" can be attributed the concept of "global stratification" of the system of international relations.

International systems refer to social systems special type . Consequently, international systems can be considered 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 appropriate description of the state that the emerging system has at this stage.

In sociology, this concept means "the structure of society and its individual strata, a system of signs of social stratification, 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. As elements of the global system, the ratio of which forms a certain structure, there 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 in the best way 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 world political governance. New factors actually transformed the classical political system of the world, which was laid down by the agreements of the Westphalian Peace Treaty of 1648, where the elements of interaction were national states.

The system of "global stratification", based on its definition, implies 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, the unified hierarchy of which is extremely difficult to build. It is difficult to unambiguously say which of the factors is the most influential today - for example, a separate nation state of the United States or the terrorist organization Al-Qaeda or still the international United Nations, etc. Therefore, 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 character. At this stage, it seems difficult to determine which of the factors can take a leading place in the new hierarchy. But even now it can be stated that in addition to the common global hierarchy, there will be independent hierarchies within individual subsystems and levels.

Thus, in pursuing its foreign policy, modern Russia should take into account the stratification nature of the new system, and it is Russia that can play a key role in the development of such a system. At the same time, it should be noted that the concept of "stratification" in this case is not negative, but corresponds to the ideas of multilevelness and interdependence. The uniqueness of Russia's position in such a system lies in the fact 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 its geostrategy and determine the main directions of its foreign policy for the next decades. Nevertheless, the primary task, in our opinion, is the development of a competent image policy of Russia, the purpose of which should be to change the attitude towards Russia as the “heir of the USSR” and to ensure the attractiveness of the Russian Federation as a full-fledged 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 the image policy, the key role should be played by the Russian political science which should be engaged in the development of its own, different from Western, concepts, approaches, paradigms that meet the interests of Russia. At the same time, it is very important that these scientific developments find application in political practice.

The Russians began to look to the side Latin America since the mid-2000s, when Washington's rhetoric toward Russia and some Latin American states became increasingly belligerent. In particular, military, economic and political ties between Russia and oil giant Venezuela deepened. Moreover, last year Russia sent the world's most powerful warship, the Kirov-class missile cruiser, and 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 imposition 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 to Venezuela of the most powerful Russian weapons systems.

And that is not all. Russia is forging strong 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 does not allow American capital to participate in the development of large Cuban oil fields, the volume of which is estimated at 5 to 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 with at least the approval of Washington; although Chavez - whether you like it or not - is the genuinely popular president of his country. Morales is also president, receiving 60 percent of the vote in referendums. The recent coup d'état in Honduras is yet another example of the fact that the comprador classes are indeed afraid of the masses capable of reforming dictatorship-era constitutions - note that the media does not question the legitimacy of dictatorial constitutions.

If Obama does not abandon the imperialist, anti-democratic logic and vocabulary of the Bush era, then the shift of Latin America towards Russia, China and India will continue. Now the "periphery" of the United States has new choices, and if the US does not realize this, the periphery will become very different and possibly hostile.

The term "cold war" was introduced 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 of 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 the Second World War, in essence, became the cradle of the Cold War? At first glance, this seems strange, but if we turn to the history of the Second World War, many things will become clear.

Germany began territorial seizures (Rhine region, 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 "necessary" direction for them. Western countries, to a certain extent, encouraged Hitler, 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 consider 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 the 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 partition agreement spheres of influence. It is now known that Hitler turned out to be unpredictable and started a war against everyone at once, which, in the end, killed him. But Hitler and nightmare could not imagine the formation of a coalition, which in the end emerged victorious in the war. Hitler counted on the fact that those 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 on which he counted really 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 emerged from this war so strong, and the means of warfare became so destructive, that it became clear that sorting things out with the old methods was too much of a luxury. Nevertheless, the desire to exterminate the opposing side of the coalition partners has not diminished. To a certain extent, the initiative to start the Cold War belongs to the Western countries, for which the might of the USSR, which became apparent during the Second World War, turned out to be a very unpleasant surprise. So, the Cold War arose shortly after the end of the Second World War, when the Allies began to take stock of its results. What did they see? Firstly,. Half of Europe ended up in the Soviet zone of influence, and pro-Soviet regimes feverishly arose there. Secondly, a powerful wave of liberation movement 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, the military and economic power of which gave them a significant superiority over others. Plus, the interests of Western countries in various points the globe begin to run into the interests of the USSR. This new state of the world, formed after the Second World War, was recognized by Churchill 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 increase its influence in the world, to spread it to new countries and peoples. The policy of planting the warring countries of their values, their own order (system) in new territories. 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 the 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 rights of the USSR to establish a naval base in the Dardanelles. Gained strength in Greece partisan movement, led by the communists and fueled by supplies from the border Albania, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, where the communists were already in power. At the London meeting of Foreign Ministers of the countries of the permanent members of the Security Council, the USSR demanded that it be granted the right to protectorate over Tripolitania (Libya) in order to ensure a presence in the Mediterranean.

The USSR sought to use the system of collective security 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 respective countries. Here and in several other countries of Western Europe, the Communists were part of the governments. In addition, after the withdrawal of the main part of the 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 in the US State Department. George Kennan, an American diplomat and expert on Russia, played an important role in this. In February 1946, while working at the US Embassy in Moscow, he set out in a telegram to Washington the basic principles of the "containment" policy. In his opinion, the US government should have reacted harshly and consistently to every attempt by the USSR to expand its sphere of influence. Further, in order to successfully resist the penetration of communism, the countries of the West should strive to create a healthy, prosperous, self-confident society. The policy of "containment" was seen by him as a way to prevent war and was not aimed at inflicting a 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 the countries of Western Europe and the Soviet Union's support for communist movements. The new policy was expressed in economic, financial and Presidential military aid non-communist, including Harry's US anti-democratic, regimes. Truman's new US foreign policy doctrine was outlined by President Harry Truman in his speech on March 12, 1947, in the US Congress. It received the main name of 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 of politics with the USSR.

On March 12, 1947, Truman delivered a speech at a joint session of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Noting at the outset that the seriousness of the situation had compelled him to appear before the general assembly of congressmen, he outlined in gloomy colors the situation in Greece. "The Greek government," he said, "works in chaos and despair. The Greek army is small and poorly equipped. It needs supplies and weapons in order to restore government authority over the entire territory of Greece." Recognizing that he proposed to interfere in the internal affairs of other states far from America and that the course he recommended to take was very serious, Truman tried to justify his policy by saying that the United States should interfere in the lives of other peoples, allegedly in order to help the majority against minorities. In fact, as noted by D. Horowitz in the book "Colossus of the Free World", the United States steadily supports the haves abroad against the have-nots, who form a clear majority. By declaring that "the world does not stand still and that status is not indestructible," Truman made it clear that the US would only accept such changes in the world as they saw fit. If, he went on to say, the US renounces "assistance to Greece and Turkey at this fateful hour, this will have far-reaching consequences for the West as well as for the East." And Truman asked Congress to allocate 400 million dollars for "aid" to these two states over the next 15 months. In conclusion, Truman said that the United States spent on the second world war The $341 billion that the appropriation he is now offering is a trifle: only 0.1% of US spending on this war. The address of the President of the United States on March 12, 1947 to Congress was called the "Truman Doctrine". Despite the preparatory work carried out, the "Truman Doctrine" met with strong opposition in Congress. The debate dragged on for two months. Many in Congress were aware of what the US President's undertaking meant. One congressman in his speech stated: "Mr. Truman demands American intervention on a large scale in the political, military and economic affairs of the Balkans. He speaks of such interference in other countries as well. Even if it were desirable, the United States is not strong enough to rule the world." with the help of the military." Truman compared his doctrine to the Monroe Doctrine. But the "Monroe Doctrine" did not provide for American intervention in the affairs of other continents.

...

What started the cold war

The term "cold war" belongs to the pen of the prose writer and publicist George Orwell, who used this phrase in 1945. However, the beginning of the conflict is associated with the speech of the former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, delivered by him in 1946 in the presence of American President Harry Truman.

Churchill declared that an "Iron Curtain" would be erected in the middle of Europe, to the east of which there was no democracy.

Churchill's speech had the following premises:

the establishment of communist governments in the states liberated by the Red Army from fascism;
the activation of the left underground in Greece (which led to civil war);
the strengthening of the communists in such Western European countries as Italy and France.

Soviet diplomacy also took advantage of this, laying claims to the Turkish straits and Libya.

The main signs of the beginning of the cold war

In the first months after the victorious May 1945, on a wave of sympathy for the eastern ally in anti-Hitler coalition, Soviet films were freely shown in Europe, and the attitude of the press towards the USSR was neutral or benevolent. In the Soviet Union, for a while, they forgot about the stamps that represented the West as the kingdom of the bourgeoisie.

With the onset of the Cold War, cultural contacts were curtailed, and the rhetoric of confrontation prevailed in diplomacy and the media. Briefly and clearly, the peoples were told who their enemy was.

All over the world there were bloody skirmishes of the allies of one side or another, and the Cold War participants themselves unleashed an arms race. This is the name given to the build-up in the arsenals of Soviet and American military weapons of mass destruction, primarily nuclear weapons.

Military spending drained state budgets and slowed down post-war economic recovery.

Causes of the Cold War - briefly and point by point

There were several reasons for this conflict:

Ideological - the insolubility of contradictions between societies built on different political foundations.
Geopolitical - the parties feared each other's dominance.
Economic - the desire of the West and the Communists to use the economic resources of the opposite side.

Stages of the Cold War

The chronology of events is divided into 5 main periods

The first stage - 1946-1955

During the first 9 years, a compromise was still possible between the victors of fascism, which both sides were looking for.

The United States strengthened its position in Europe thanks to the Marshall Plan economic assistance program. Western countries united in NATO in 1949, and the Soviet Union successfully tested nuclear weapons.

In 1950, the war broke out in Korea, where both the USSR and the USA participated to varying degrees. Stalin dies, but the Kremlin's diplomatic position does not change significantly.

The second stage - 1955-1962

Communists face opposition from the populations of Hungary, Poland and the GDR. In 1955, an alternative to the Western Alliance appeared - the Warsaw Pact Organization.

The arms race is moving to the stage of creating intercontinental missiles. A side effect of military developments was space exploration, the launch of the first satellite and the first cosmonaut of the USSR. The Soviet bloc is strengthened at the expense of Cuba, where Fidel Castro comes to power.

Third stage - 1962-1979

After the Caribbean crisis, the parties are trying to curb the military race. In 1963, an agreement was signed to ban atomic tests in air, space and under water. In 1964, the conflict in Vietnam begins, provoked by the desire of the West to defend this country from leftist rebels.

In the early 1970s, the world entered the era of "détente". Its main characteristic is the desire for peaceful coexistence. The parties limit strategic offensive weapons and prohibit biological and chemical weapons.

The peace diplomacy of Leonid Brezhnev in 1975 was crowned with the signing by 33 countries in Helsinki of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. At the same time, the Soyuz-Apollo joint program was launched with the participation of Soviet cosmonauts and American astronauts.

Fourth stage - 1979-1987

In 1979, the Soviet Union sent an army to Afghanistan to install a puppet government. In the wake of aggravated contradictions, the United States refused to ratify the SALT-2 treaty, signed earlier by Brezhnev and Carter. The West is boycotting the Olympics in Moscow.

President Ronald Reagan showed himself as a tough anti-Soviet politician by launching the SDI program - strategic defense initiatives. American missiles are deployed in close proximity to the territory of the Soviet Union.

Fifth period - 1987-1991

This stage was given the definition of "new political thinking".

The transfer of power to Mikhail Gorbachev and the beginning of perestroika in the USSR meant the renewal of contacts with the West and the gradual abandonment of ideological intransigence.

Crises of the Cold War

The crises of the Cold War in history are called several periods of the greatest aggravation of relations between rival parties. Two of them - the Berlin crises of 1948-1949 and 1961 - associated with the formation of three political entities on the site of the former Reich - the GDR, the FRG and West Berlin.

In 1962, the USSR deployed nuclear missiles in Cuba, threatening the security of the United States - these events were called the Caribbean Crisis. Subsequently, Khrushchev dismantled the missiles in exchange for the Americans withdrawing the missiles from Turkey.

When and how did the Cold War end?

In 1989, the Americans and Russians announced the end of the Cold War. In fact, this meant the dismantling of the socialist regimes of Eastern Europe, right up to Moscow itself. Germany united, the Department of Internal Affairs collapsed, and then the USSR itself.

Who won the cold war

In January 1992, George W. Bush declared: "With the help of the Lord God, America won the Cold War!" His jubilation at the end of the confrontation was not shared by many residents of the countries of the former USSR, where a time of economic upheaval and criminal chaos began.

In 2007, a bill was submitted to the US Congress establishing a medal for participation in the Cold War. For the American establishment, the theme of the victory over communism remains an important element of political propaganda.

Results

Why the socialist camp turned out to be weaker than the capitalist one and what was its significance for humanity are the main final questions of the Cold War. The consequences of these events are being felt even in the 21st century. The collapse of the left forces led to economic growth, democratic reforms, a surge of nationalism and religious intolerance in the world.

Along with this, the weapons accumulated during these years are preserved, and the governments of Russia and Western countries operate largely on the basis of the concepts and stereotypes learned during the armed confrontation.

The Cold War, which lasted 45 years, is for historians essential process the second half of the twentieth century, which determined the outlines of the modern world.

The administration of George W. Bush still cannot determine its policy towards Russia. And this uncertainty is already beginning to have a negative impact on the concrete actions of the White House, which absolutely do not contribute to the establishment and development of bilateral Russian-American contacts.

The latest development in this area may be the mass expulsion of Russian diplomats from the United States. According to news agencies, Washington intends to expel up to 50 employees of the Russian diplomatic mission in the United States for "activities incompatible with their status." Six more diplomats who worked at the Russian Embassy in Washington and recently left the United States have been declared persona non grata - they will never again be able to set foot on American soil (an exception is possible only if the US President makes a special decision on each of such cases).
Similar events have already occurred in the history of relations between the two superpowers. True, they took place during the Cold War - in 1986, 80 Soviet diplomats were expelled from the United States, called in Washington "officers of the GRU and the KGB." But then President Reagan called the Soviet Union an "evil empire." Bush Jr. and his administration, most of whose key members were already in the US civil service and left the corridors of power after the end of the Cold War, judging by their own statements, do not intend to return to these times.
At the US embassy in Russia, of course, the Krasnaya Zvezda correspondent did not have a chance to hear any comments about such an unfriendly, but possible act towards Moscow. Nevertheless, if this happens, then Moscow, no doubt, will react extremely harshly to such a demarche. The number of employees of the Russian embassy in the USA is 190 people, the American one in Russia - 1,100. And it is far from a fact that, according to existing practice, exactly the same number of American diplomats can be expelled from Moscow. As one of the high-ranking representatives of the Russian special services put it, "we can even talk about percentages."
The reference to the failure of Robert Hanssen, who supposedly was a Russian agent in the FBI, is also inappropriate in this case. After all, it is one thing to expel from the country knowingly intelligence agents who are established in any state, including Russia, and the competent authorities are aware of their movements. Here, of course, a chain reaction is possible, which is absolutely common in intelligence and is an integral part of this profession. But it could only affect specific people associated with the agent, and not result in a mass expulsion of diplomats.
Another action that also stands out among the recent actions of the new American administration and has a frank anti-Russian character could be the reception at the US State Department of the so-called Chechen Foreign Minister Ilyas Akhmadov. Reports that this "minister" has arrived in the country and are waiting for him at a reception at the US State Department have already appeared in the American media.
It should be noted that these actions of Washington are clearly coordinated in time. Especially if you take into account the events around Macedonia and Kosovo, where Albanian militants are operating, who were fed, armed and trained by the United States. Even Europe, which, not without Washington's help, was drawn into the conflict in the Balkans, makes claims against its overseas ally. In addition, disagreements are growing between the United States and its European allies regarding the deployment of an American missile defense system.
Under these conditions, Washington, apparently, needed a diversionary maneuver - to quickly transfer the world community to another "hot" topic. Naturally, this is Russia with its independent and self-sufficient foreign policy. They immediately recalled Russia's counterterrorist operation in Chechnya. With language that has already set the teeth on edge like “disproportionate use of force” and “examine the situation from the words of the other side” ...
All this is happening against the backdrop of a fierce debate on missile defense issues, accusations by the head of the Pentagon that “Moscow is violating international agreements and treaties on the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction and missile technology,” and absolute uncertainty about the possibility of a personal meeting between Putin and Bush Jr.
Of course, such actions do not increase trust between Moscow and Washington. Nevertheless, our country, as its official representatives say, does not intend to dramatize the situation. Russia is ready, as it was announced immediately after the election of a new US president, to cooperate and look for ways to solve the entire spectrum of problems in Russian-American relations.