The most important international military-political organizations and blocs. On the formation of military-political alliances Military-political blocs and alliances

Concluding the characterization of Russia's foreign policy in the 19th century, we should dwell briefly on the formation of military-political alliances in Europe at the end of the century.

After the Berlin Congress, Russia's international position worsened again. A new balance of political and military forces was taking shape in the world. By the beginning of the 80s. in Europe there was a sharp strengthening of Germany. The positions of Austria-Hungary in the Balkans were strengthened, England stepped up its colonial conquests.

By the beginning of the 80s. Germany remained the most important market for agricultural products for Russia, and therefore the economic interests of the landowners required the maintenance of friendly relations with it. The monarchical solidarity of both courts also pushed for Russian-German rapprochement.

In the mid 80s. A series of coups d'état took place in Bulgaria, as a result of which the influence of Russia in the Bulgarian ruling circles was forced out. The loss of influence on the Bulgarian government was a serious setback for tsarist diplomacy.

Bismarck's tough policy towards Russia to create artificial complications for the Russian government in the Balkans and the German economic pressure on the Russian bourgeois-landlord circles associated with the German regime did not justify itself. The policy of the Russian government increasingly began to acquire anti-German features. In 1887, decrees were issued restricting the flow of German capital into Russia and raising duties on the import of metal, metal products and coal, on products of the chemical industry, etc.

By the end of the 80s. Russia's contradictions with Austria-Hungary and Germany became more significant than the contradictions with England. In resolving international issues, the Russian government began to look for partners. An important prerequisite for such a step was the serious changes in the entire European situation, caused by the conclusion in 1882 of the Triple Alliance between Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy. In the early 90s. there were signs of rapprochement between the members of the Triple Alliance and England. Under these conditions, the rapprochement between Russia and France began.

The Russian-French rapprochement had not only a political, but also an economic basis. Since 1887, Russia began to regularly receive French loans.

In the summer of 1891, a French military squadron arrived in Kronstadt. On August 27, 1891, a Russian-French alliance was concluded in secrecy. A year later, in connection with the new increase in the German army, a military convention was signed between Russia and France. The final formalization of the Russian-French alliance did not take place immediately. Only in January 1894 was the treaty ratified by Alexander III and became binding.

The alliance with France put forward the need for a reorientation of Russia's foreign policy in other regions. The government was forced to abandon active operations in the Balkans. This was associated with Russia's new obligations to France.

At the same time, tsarism stepped up its foreign policy activities in the Far East.

Thus, as we see, the foreign policy of Russia in the XIX century. was complex and ambiguous. Its decline or activity was undoubtedly influenced by the changing situation both in Russia itself and in international relations.

53 Explain the basic principles of the policy of social reformism in European countries ah at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. Give examples of such a policy in one of the countries of Europe and America.

Theories of state and social structure in the countries of Europe and America.By the beginning of the XX century. in most countries of Europe and America there were political freedoms, parliaments functioned, the principle of separation of powers was recognized. It was the result of a long historical development.

Back in the 18th century a doctrine arose about the natural and inalienable rights of man, which everyone has from the moment of birth and which no power can cancel. First proclaimed in the United States Declaration of Independence (1776) and the French Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen (1789), such rights include "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (the United States Declaration of Independence) and "liberty, equality, property, security." and the right to resist oppression" (Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen). These principles define democratic freedoms: freedom of speech and the press (including the right to criticize the government), freedom of the individual from extrajudicial persecution, freedom of religion, the right to private property, freedom of political and public activity.

Since the American War of Independence and the French Revolution, the protection of the natural and inalienable rights of man has been considered the most important task of democratic states.

The basic principles of the state structure had to comply with the doctrine of popular sovereignty, according to which the supreme power (sovereignty) belongs to the people, and the people exercise it by electing their representatives to the central and local authorities.

The highest representative institutions, expressing the interests of the people and carrying out their will, were considered assemblies of deputies elected by the population - parliaments (Congress - in the USA, Reichstag - in Germany, Duma - in Russia). As a rule, parliaments consisted of two chambers, but there were also unicameral parliaments.

In the republics and in constitutional monarchies (for example, in England), a parliamentary regime operated. Parliaments had legislative power there, issued laws, determined the budget (that is, state revenues and expenditures), and approved the composition of the government. Executive power was exercised by the government (Cabinet or Council of Ministers), headed by the president or prime minister (in Germany, the chancellor).

In republics of "presidential type" (for example, in the USA), the head of government is the president, elected by the population. In the "parliamentary type" republics, the president was elected by the parliament and his powers were limited. The country was ruled by a parliamentary government headed by a prime minister. It was responsible to Parliament (responsible government) and was obliged to resign if the majority of the MPs expressed no confidence in it (usually by voting a special "vote of no confidence").

In addition to the legislative and executive powers, countries with a parliamentary regime had an independent judiciary - a system of central and local courts, as well as the Supreme Court.

In accordance with the doctrine of the separation of powers, all three branches of government - legislative, executive and judicial - must remain independent and mutually balance each other in order to avoid excessive concentration of power, which can lead to despotism. The separation of powers was considered the most important guarantee of the preservation of political rights and freedoms.

Outlined principles rule of law represent a model political system, more or less fully established in the leading capitalist countries Western Europe and North America. active at the beginning of the 20th century. electoral systems excluded from participation in elections a significant part of the population - women, and often military personnel, who did not have the right to vote.

54 Describe the new stage of the industrial revolution in Europe and America, explain its essence.

In the nineteenth century the industrial revolution, which began in England, stepped into France, Germany, and other European countries. Huge cities and factory chimneys have transformed the continent. The Industrial Revolution also developed rapidly in the United States.

Achievements of human civilization in the nineteenth century. began to be measured by success in the development of machine production. Technological progress has become one of the main values.

England remained the most developed country in the field of industrial production.It was here that a new branch of industry arose - mechanical engineering. A rapidly developing domestic market and foreign trade were served by a developed railway network. The industrial revolution also affected the agricultural sector of the country, in which progressive methods of agriculture and new technology began to be applied.

By the end of the century, the country was on wheels. Mass production of automobiles began. The telephone and telegraph became more accessible, facilitating communication processes. Technological progress made changes in military equipment. Firearms became widely used. At the turn of the nineteenth century. electricity began to enter the life of people.

The initial capitalist development was called the era of free competition. Entrepreneurs fought for favorable conditions for the production and sale of goods. This struggle was not limited and acted as the main stimulus for the development of the economy. Economic crises became the main regulator of the spontaneous market, after they were overcome, a new rise in production began.

But the use of highly developed technology, complex equipment was possible only within the framework of large production structures that began to appear in the second half of the 19th century. In order to avoid intense competition among themselves, large industrialists began to negotiate prices, the quantity of products produced, and even sales markets. Thus, various organizational forms of mergers of enterprises arose - cartels, syndicates, trusts, concerns.

In the event that an industrial or financial corporation concentrated in its hands dominance in any branch of the economy, it became a monopoly. But tens of thousands of independent medium and small enterprises continued to exist in society. But the monopoly sector of the economy became dominant.

Free competition capitalism has been replaced by monopoly capitalism. On the one hand, it made it possible to introduce new equipment and increase labor productivity, but, on the other hand, the domination of monopolies posed a threat to the free market and limited the ability of other structures to also increase production.

The industrial revolution changed social structure Western European society. The number of bourgeoisie and hired industrial workers increased. By the beginning of the twentieth century. they became the main social groups of industrial society. As for the main classes of traditional society - landowning nobles and peasants, their numbers decreased. But these changes took place depending on the pace of modernization of a particular country.

Thus, in England, the classical landlord and peasant economy disappeared already in the 18th century. The property of seigneurs on land in France was destroyed by the revolution. The US has never had the classes of a traditional society. The landlord economy was preserved in Austria, Italy, and the German states. But after the Napoleonic wars, reforms were carried out here as well, which contributed to the development of capitalist relations in agriculture.

Modernization processes destroyed class distinctions between people. Within the leading social groups there was a process of stratification. The bourgeoisie, the working class and the peasantry were heterogeneous.

With the development of industrial society, the old aristocracy lost its leading position. Many aristocratic families went bankrupt. Gradually, the aristocracy merged with the bourgeoisie, which led to the emergence of a new "upper class". In the nineteenth century, the leading economic and political positions passed to the bourgeoisie.

55 Explain the essence of the term state-monopoly capitalism.

What is the essence of state-monopoly capitalism?

State-monopoly capitalism is the modern form of existence of capitalism. Its essence lies in the combination of the power of monopolies with the power of the state into a special mechanism to support the viability of the capitalist system.
In modern conditions, there is a tendency towards an increase in the economic role of the state under the influence of the growth of the socialization of production, internationalization economic life, scientific and technological revolution. A distinctive feature of the MMC is the combination of a market mechanism of management with state regulation. The economic role of the state has three main functions that ensure stability, justice and efficiency in society.
The stabilization function is to maintain a high level of employment and price stability, as well as to stimulate economic growth.
The distributive function is associated with achieving a more equitable distribution of income in society.
The efficiency function is aimed at the rational allocation of resources in market economy.
The state supports and stimulates those areas of activity that under the influence of market forces develop insufficiently, at the same time it plays the role of a coordinator influencing the development of the economy, smoothing out the actions of purely market forces and excessive monopolization.

What are the main forms of manifestation of state-monopoly capitalism?

The essence of the GMC is manifested in the following forms:
1. The development of entrepreneurial activities of the state and the formation on this basis of state-monopoly property.
2. State-monopoly regulation and programming of the economy.
4. Redistribution of the gross national product with the help of public finances.
5. Militarization of the economy and the formation of a military-industrial complex.
6. Integration processes and development of international forms of MMC.

Of particular importance will be the financing of state-owned enterprises and the policy of "accelerated depreciation" as a means of promoting technological progress. One of the organized forms of the modern MMC is state-monopoly complexes. They make it possible to link the production capacities, scientific and technical potentials of many monopolies and the state. State-monopoly complexes have developed in military production, the nuclear industry, the agro-industrial sector, and the aerospace sector.
The combination of various forms forms a common economic mechanism through which the MMC system is implemented. The economic mechanism is the totality of all forms of economic regulation and organizational and legal foundations that determine the distribution of production resources, dynamism and quality parameters, primarily the efficiency of economic development. MMC organically connects the plan and the market, using the advisory nature of planning based on long-term forecasts.

56 Compare the main economic indicators of Europe and America at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries.

By the beginning of modern times, the countries of the West were experiencing a period of rapid economic growth. Only in the last three decades of the XIX century. the volume of world industrial output and the turnover of world trade increased by more than 3 times. Oil production increased 25 times during these years. steel smelting by 56 times. The components of this "economic miracle" were the acceleration of technical and technological progress, the concentration of production, and the increase in its overall capital intensity. But the main reason for the acceleration of the economic boom was the formation in the leading countries of the West of an integral system of industrial reproduction. The industrial revolution that took place during the 19th century in Great Britain, France and the USA, by the end of the century ended in Germany, Austria-Hungary, Russia and Italy, and at the very beginning of the 20th century. - in Japan. The industrial economic model based on capitalist entrepreneurship, free market competition, the use of skilled hired labor, accelerated technological progress, dynamic economic growth associated with an increase in the rate of accumulation and a rapid expansion of the range of production functions, has become predominant not only in Western countries, but also in the world.

An important factor in the approval of the industrial economic model was the change in the dynamics of scientific and technological progress. Its pace and direction began to be largely determined by the needs of production, focusing on the development of the latest industrial technology. Financing of applied scientific and technical research by the business community and the purposeful, accelerated nature of the implementation of their results strengthened this trend. As a result, for only a few decades at the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. there was a qualitative transformation of the entire technical and technological base of industry. The most large-scale changes affected the industries of group A, associated with the extraction and processing of raw materials, mechanical engineering, chemical production, and provision of transport infrastructure. Revolutionary changes have taken place in the field of energy.

The creation of a fundamentally new energy base and an extensive transport infrastructure, the widespread introduction of the latest technical achievements and the conveyor system into production, and the standardization of products ensured unusually high profitability for large enterprises. The last obstacle to a powerful breakthrough in the concentration of production was the rapid growth of its capital intensity. In the early stages of the development of the capitalist economy, investment was carried out mainly individual entrepreneurs. There was also no developed system of long-term credit. Now, the creation of industrial giants and the constant updating of the technological base of production required such financial power that exceeded the capabilities of even the wealthiest investors.

57 State the main reasons for the formation of coalitions before the First World War.

The situation before the First World War.

In 1882 Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy signed an agreement to establish tripartite alliance. Germany played a leading role in it. From the moment the aggressive block of countries was formed, its members began active preparations for a future war. Each state had its own plans and goals.

Germany sought to defeat Great Britain, deprive her of maritime power, expand her "living space" at the expense of the French, Belgian and Portuguese colonies and weaken Russia, tear away the Polish provinces, Ukraine and the Baltic states from her, depriving her of the borders along the Baltic Sea, enslave Europe and turn it into your colony. The Germans recognized for themselves the "historic mission of renewing decrepit Europe" in ways based on the "superiority of the superior race" over all others. This idea was pursued and propagated among the masses by the authorities, literature, schools and even the church with the greatest perseverance and systematicity.

As for Austria-Hungary, its goal was much more moderate: "Austrian hegemony in the Balkans" is the main slogan of its policy. She hoped to capture Serbia and Montenegro, take away from Russia part of the Polish provinces, Podolia and Volhynia.

Italy wanted to penetrate the Balkan Peninsula, acquire territorial possessions there and strengthen its influence.

Turkey, which subsequently supported the position of the Central Powers, with the support of Germany, claimed the territory of the Russian Transcaucasus.

In the years 1904 - 1907 formed Entente military bloc, consisting of UK, France and Russia. It was founded in opposition to the Triple Alliance (Central Powers). Subsequently, during the First World War, he united more than 20 states (among them - the United States, Japan, and Italy, which went over to the side of the anti-German coalition in the middle of the war).

As for the Entente countries, they also had their own interests.

Great Britain sought to preserve its maritime and colonial power, to defeat Germany as a competitor in the world market and to stop her claims to redistribute the colonies. In addition, Great Britain counted on seizing the oil-rich Mesopotamia and Palestine from Turkey.

France wanted to return Alsace and Lorraine, taken from her by Germany in 1871, and seize the Saar coal basin.

Russia also had certain strategic interests in the Balkans, wanted to annex Galicia and the lower reaches of the Neman, and also wanted to have a free exit of the Black Sea Fleet through the Turkish Bosporus and Dardanelles to the Mediterranean Sea.

The situation was also complicated by the fierce economic competition of European countries in the world market. Each of them wanted to eliminate rivals not only by economic and political methods, but also by force of arms.

58 Describe the causes, objectives, ways of carrying out and results of the reforms of the first decade of the twentieth century. in Russia.

The revolutionary situation in Russia in 1905–1907, which shook the country, gave rise to a new agrarian reform, which went down in history under the name of Stolypin. Its central idea was the forcible destruction of the peasant land community and the creation on its ruins new system agriculture, which gives rise to the dominance of strong masters (kulaks, farmers - each political doctrine calls them in its own way).

ASSOCIATION of South-East Asia Nations (ASEAN) - formed on August 8, 1967 in Bangkok. It included Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, the Philippines, then Brunei Darussalam (in 1984), Vietnam (in 1995), Laos and Myanmar (in 1997), Cambodia (in 1999).

Papua New Guinea has special observer status.

1) Regulatory framework. The main documents of ASEAN are the ASEAN Bangkok Declaration on August 8, 1967, the Declaration of “ASEAN Accords” on February 24, 1976, the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (Bali Treaty) on February 24, 1976 and two additional Protocols to it. Currently, ASEAN has developed a mechanism for the possible accession to the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation in Southeast Asia (SEA) of non-regional powers, including Russia, by joining Protocol II of the Treaty.

The economic activities of the Association are based on the ASEAN Free Trade Area Agreement (AFTA) 1992, the ASEAN Vision 2020: Partnership in Dynamic Development program 1997, the Hanoi Action Plan 1998, the framework agreement on the Zone Investment in ASEAN (AIA) 1998 and the Industrial Cooperation Scheme (AIKO), Hanoi Declaration on Reducing the Development Lagging to Realize Closer Integration within ASEAN July 23, 2001

An important place in the activities of the Association is occupied by the work on the creation of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in Southeast Asia on the basis of the Declaration on a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (November 27, 1971) and the Treaty on a Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone in Southeast Asia (December 15, 1995). G.). In the 21st century, the ASEAN states are consulting with the nuclear powers, including Russia, to finalize the text of the Protocol on their accession to the Treaty.

2) The statutory goals of ASEAN in the Bangkok Declaration are defined as promoting the development of socio-economic and cultural cooperation between member states, strengthening peace and stability in Southeast Asia.

3) The main organs. The supreme body of ASEAN is the meetings of heads of state and government, held every 3 years. In the period between official meetings, informal summits are held annually. The governing and coordinating body of the Association is the annual meetings of the Ministers of Foreign Affairs (CMFA), which are held on a rotational basis. If necessary, special ministerial meetings can be convened. Meetings of ministers of economy are also held every year.

The current leadership of ASEAN is carried out by a standing committee chaired by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the state hosting the next Ministerial Council. The members of the Standing Committee, in addition to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the host state or his representative, are the ambassadors of the ASEAN member states accredited in the state. The task of the Standing Committee is to carry out the work of the Association in the period between the Ministerial Councils. At the same time, there are ad hoc committees (“on the occasion”) and permanent committees of experts and official representatives on special issues.

Jakarta has a permanent Secretariat headed by the Secretary General. The Secretariat coordinates the activities of ASEAN mechanisms and structures. The General Secretary is elected for 5 years.

He is obliged to attend personally or through his representatives at all events held within the framework of ASEAN, has the authority to speak on behalf of ASEAN and communicate with other international organizations and governments. Contacts and coordination between various ASEAN bodies are also carried out through the Secretary General. It is in charge of monitoring the implementation of decisions and initiatives taken, clarification of the directives of the Standing Committee. It acts as a depository of ASEAN documents, submits an annual report to the meeting of foreign ministers, etc.

The ASEAN Secretariat coordinates the activities of 11 specialized committees. In total, over 300 events are held annually within the framework of the organization.

Each participating State has a National Secretariat which conducts the work of the Association on behalf of its State and assists in holding annual or special meetings of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, the activities of the Standing Committee and other committees that may be organized on special issues.

In recent years, there have been growing calls within ASEAN for a move away from some of the founding principles of the Association. In particular, this concerns the lifting of the "ban" on the discussion of those internal political problems of individual members of the "tens" that affect the interests of the entire group (the so-called "constructive intervention"). Under the pressure of such sentiments, at the Manila (1999) ASEAN summit, it was decided to create an ASEAN "troika" at the level of foreign ministers to help resolve the internal political problems of member states. However, neither the composition of the "troika" nor the mechanism of its activity has yet been determined.

Within the framework of the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation in Southeast Asia, aimed at settling disputes and conflict situations in the region, a Supreme Council has been established. In accordance with the Rules of Procedure adopted in July 2001 during ASEAN events Supreme Council it should include representatives at the ministerial level from each ASEAN state, as well as one representative at the ministerial level from states outside the Southeast Asian region directly involved in the dispute (in the event such states join the Bali Treaty). The Supreme Council is headed by the Chairman, who is elected only from representatives of the ASEAN states. It is the duty of the High Council to study the dispute or conflict situation and make recommendations on how to resolve it, such as good offices, mediation, investigation or conciliation. In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the settlement mechanism is launched only by the state directly involved in the dispute, by sending a written message through diplomatic channels to the Chairman of the Supreme Council and other states parties to the Treaty. The President of the High Council shall obtain from all parties to the dispute consent to the application of the procedure of the High Council. Having received the consent of the parties, the Chairman holds a meeting of the Supreme Council, at which an appropriate decision is made.

The Supreme Council of the Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation in Southeast Asia does not operate at the beginning of the 21st century.

The decision-making mechanism in all ASEAN structures is based on the principle of consensus.

4) Dialogue relations. In the 70s of the XX century, a system of dialogue relations of the Association with the leading states of the world, primarily in the Asia-Pacific region, was born, maintaining active political and economic relations with it. Full-scale dialogue partners with ASEAN are Australia, India, Canada, China, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, Russia, USA, Japan and the EU. Pakistan is the Association's sectoral dialogue partner.

Dialogue interaction is provided by special mechanisms, the leading among which are the Joint Cooperation Committees (JCCs). They coordinate the activities of the various working groups established within the framework of the dialogue. There are regular meetings of senior officials (SAOs - at the level of deputy foreign ministers) on political issues. In addition, ASEAN committees operate in each state, uniting ASEAN ambassadors in the host state. Such ASEAN committees have an advisory function and are designed to exchange information and communicate with government agencies.

The practice of dialogue partnership also provides for the creation of a Cooperation Fund at the expense of the dialogue partner state, the funds of which are intended to finance joint projects and programs in the field of trade, economic, scientific, technical, investment, cultural and other interaction, approved by the relevant cooperation committee.

5) Russia-ASEAN Dialogue. Since 1996, Russia has been a full-scale dialogue partner of ASEAN. The mechanisms of the Russia-ASEAN dialogue include:

the Joint Cooperation Committee (JCC), which met in 1997 (Moscow) and 2000 (Jakarta);

RAS Working Group on Scientific and Technological Cooperation (the first session was held in Moscow on June 9-10, 1997);

Institute for regular meetings of senior officials (at the level of deputy foreign ministers) on political issues. The first meeting took place in June 1998 in Moscow, the second - in October 1999 in Ho Chi Minh City, the third - in April 2002 in Moscow;

Quarterly meetings of the leadership of the Russian Foreign Ministry with the ASEAN Moscow Committee, which unites the ambassadors of the ASEAN member states in Russian Federation.

It is planned to create a second working group Russia-ASEAN on trade and economic cooperation, as well as the Russia-ASEAN Joint Planning and Administrative Committee.

6) ASEAN Regional Forum. Since 1994, the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) has been operating, which is a mechanism for intergovernmental dialogue on security issues in the Asia-Pacific region. Its plenary meetings are held annually at the level of foreign ministers. They are attended by ASEAN member states, dialogue partners of the Association, Papua New Guinea, since 1998 - Mongolia, since 2000 - the DPRK.

WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION (WEU) - (English Western European Union - WEU) - military-political organization of 10 states of Western Europe: Belgium, Great Britain, Greece. Spain, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, France and Germany. In addition, 6 states participate in its work as associate members (Hungary, Iceland, Poland, Turkey, Norway and the Czech Republic), 7 states - with the status of associated partners (Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Estonia), as well as 5 observer states (Austria, Denmark, Ireland, Finland and Sweden). The WEU was established in accordance with the Brussels Treaty of March 17, 1948 and the Paris Treaty of October 23, 1954.

The highest body of the WEU is the Council, which meets at the level of ministers of foreign affairs and defense. Member States take turns chairing the Council on an annual rotation basis. The Permanent Council is in charge of the current work. Valid:

The WEU Assembly is the parliamentary body of the union, the Political Commission and the Consultative Forum, which consider various issues of the organization's activities. The secretary general coordinates the work of the bodies of the organization.

The WEU maintains extensive ties with the EU and NATO. The leadership of all three of these organizations believe that the WEU should continue to play a "pivot" role in ensuring constant communication and interaction between the EU and NATO. A decision was made to integrate the WEU into the European Union.

Among the WEU member states, there are two points of view on the prospects for its further development:

Transformation of the alliance into a structure that complements NATO's defense potential by connecting the multinational military formations created within the framework of the WEU to the military organization of the North Atlantic Alliance as its European core;

Accession to the EU to strengthen its defensive component as a kind of "Ministry of Defence". Like NATO, the WEU seeks to expand its membership - at this stage, by increasing the number of associate members and partners with whom all issues within its competence are discussed. However, WEU security issues are considered without the invitation of associated partners. Russia has been in real contact with the WEU since 1992, considering the WEU coalition as one of the elements in the formation of a pan-European security architecture. The WEU is interested in practical cooperation with the Russian Federation in the field of peacekeeping in Europe, the exchange of information on issues of mutual interest, the acquisition of satellite photographs and the development of heavy transport aviation. Bilateral contacts are being carried out along parliamentary and scientific lines.

UN Disarmament Commission - (eng. UN Disarmament Commission) - an advisory body established in 1952 by decision of the UN General Assembly to prepare recommendations on disarmament issues, monitor the implementation of decisions of the UN General Assembly on disarmament issues, develop general directions for disarmament negotiations , the basic principles for the development of confidence-building measures.

Until 1978, the Commission consisted of 12 states and was subordinate to the Security Council. Since 1959, it has included all UN member states. Reports to the UN General Assembly. The status and mandate of the UN Disarmament Commission were redefined in 1978 by the First Special Session of the UN General Assembly on Disarmament.

Decisions in the Commission are made by consensus. The results of the Commission's work are presented annually in a report submitted to the UN General Assembly.

ORGANIZATION FOR SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE (OSCE) (former name - CONFERENCE ON SECURITY AND COOPERATION IN EUROPE - CSCE) - (English Organization on Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) - Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe - CSCE).

Initially, the CSCE was conceived as an international meeting of representatives of 33 European states, as well as the United States and Canada, convened on the initiative of the USSR and its allied states to develop measures to reduce military confrontation and strengthen security in Europe. It was carried out in several stages:

Stage one - from 3 to 7 July 1973 in Helsinki at the level of foreign ministers of states.

The second stage - from September 18, 1973 to July 21, 1975 in Geneva (with interruptions), at which about 200 proposals were made on all sections of the agenda of the meeting and the text of the Final Act was agreed upon.

Stage three - from July 30 to August 1, 1975 in Helsinki at the level of heads of state, during which the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe was signed on August 1. A start has been given to the all-European process - the multifaceted activity of the countries of Europe, the USA and Canada. (Currently, 55 states participate in the OSCE).

The final act includes the following main agreements:

In the international legal field - consolidation of the political and territorial results of the Second World War, the adoption of ten principles of relations between the participating States, among which the principle of inviolability of borders is clearly stated;

In the military-political area, agreeing on the first set of confidence-building measures in the military area (preliminary notification of military exercises, major troop movements, exchange of observers at military exercises on a voluntary basis);

In the economic field - coordination of the main areas of multilateral cooperation in the field of economy, science and technology and environmental protection;

In the humanitarian field, the harmonization of a number of commitments on human rights and fundamental freedoms, including freedom of movement, contacts, information, culture and education.

Agreements within the pan-European process are not legally binding, but they are of great political importance. When they are adopted, the rule of consensus applies.

In the development of these agreements, Belgrade (1977-1978), Madrid (1980-1983), Stockholm (1984), Vienna (1986) and a number of other meetings of representatives of European states were held to exchange views on the implementation of the Final Act and the development of additional measures to ensure European security.

Of particular importance for the evolution of the CSCE was the Paris Conference of the Heads of State and Government of the CSCE participating States (November 19-21, 1990). The Charter of Paris for a New Europe, which marked the end of the Cold War era, was signed, the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) was concluded, and a joint declaration of 22 states (NATO and Warsaw Pact members) was adopted. The 1990 Vienna Document on Confidence and Security Building Measures in Europe was also approved.

Another important outcome of the Paris meeting was the decision to institutionalize the CSCE process. A three-stage mechanism of political consultations has been created: summit meetings, the Council of Foreign Ministers (CMFA), the Committee of Senior Officials (CSO).

From September 10 to October 4, 1991, the third final meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension of the CSCE was held in Moscow (the first was held in 1989 in Paris, the second in 1990 in Copenhagen). The document adopted at the Moscow meeting noted for the first time that issues relating to human rights, fundamental freedoms, democracy and the rule of law are of an international nature, and obligations in the field of the human dimension of the CSCE are not exclusively the internal affairs of the respective state.

The milestone event for the development of the pan-European process was the Helsinki Summit in 1992.

The document adopted in Helsinki - "The Challenge of the Times of Change" - gave impetus to the transformation of the CSCE from a forum of predominantly political dialogue between participating states into a trans-regional organization for maintaining military-political stability and developing cooperation "from Vancouver to Vladivostok". The CSCE received wide powers and various opportunities to take practical measures in the field of preventing and resolving local and regional conflicts.

continued this process. The post of Secretary General of the CSCE was established, the work of the Vienna CSO group was initiated, within the framework of which all current issues of the CSCE activities were discussed.

The meeting of the CSCE Ministerial Council in Rome (November 30-December 1, 1993) was devoted to the tasks of increasing the effectiveness of the CSCE, re-profiling its potential for peacekeeping and crisis management.

The Rome Council of Foreign Ministers adopted a Declaration on Aggressive Nationalism, aiming the Helsinki process at counteracting this dangerous source of contemporary conflicts.

A number of decisions were approved on the structural strengthening of the CSCE, including the establishment of the CSCE Standing Committee - an institution of permanent representatives of the participating states.

In December 1994 another summit meeting took place in Budapest. A decision was made to rename the CSCE from January 1, 1995 to the OSCE - the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe.

The documents of the summit - the Political Declaration "Towards a true partnership in a new era and other decisions reflect the fundamental provisions on the central role of the OSCE in building a secure, united and free Europe, on the need to ensure genuine partnership in European affairs through due consideration of the interests and priorities of all participating states. A politically significant event was the adoption of the Declaration in connection with the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II.

A major outcome of the summit was an agreement to start developing a model of common and comprehensive security for Europe in the 21st century. The military-political agreements ("Code of Conduct Concerning the Military-Political Aspects of Security", "Principles Governing Non-Proliferation", etc.) laid the foundation for a common space of trust.

On December 7-8, 1995, a meeting of the Ministerial Council of Foreign Ministers was held in Budapest, which focused on two key topics - a new security model and the OSCE's contribution to its settlement. Based on the model, an interim document was adopted, which summed up the results of a year-long discussion and outlined guidelines for further work.

On December 2-3, 1996, a regular meeting of the heads of state and government of the OSCE participating states took place in Lisbon. The adopted documents - the Declaration of the Lisbon Summit and the Declaration "On a Model of Common and Comprehensive Security for Europe in the 21st Century" - emphasize the need to build a united, peaceful and democratic Europe without dividing lines, as well as the key role of the OSCE in strengthening security and stability in all dimensions.

Another important result of Lisbon is the adoption of the document on updating the CFE Treaty. Simultaneously with the decision to adapt this treaty, the Russian side succeeded in securing the obligation of the participating states to exercise restraint in relation to their military efforts, including the levels of armaments and their deployment.

The "Conceptual Framework for Arms Control" and the "Development of the Agenda of the Forum for Security Co-operation" adopted in Lisbon consolidated the role of arms control as an important tool for ensuring stability in Europe. They make it possible to use a pan-European format for raising and considering questions about further measures to build confidence and military security. At the same time, the focus of “humanitarian conflict” issues in the space became more and more noticeable in the work of the OSCE. former USSR and SFRY.

On December 18-19, 1997, the sixth meeting of the OSCE Ministerial Council took place in Copenhagen. Its main result was a detailed decision to start substantive work on a Charter for European Security. The “main directions” of the Charter are fixed, which, on the whole, are in line with the proposals of the Russian side.

The next, seventh meeting of the OSCE Ministerial Council was held on December 2-3, 1998 in Oslo. A significant political result of the Ministerial Council was the adoption of the Declaration, which reflects Russia's approaches to the role of the OSCE in creating a new European security system, the main current problems, as well as the risks and challenges of modern Europe. The Declaration also included provisions on OSCE police operations.

A significant place in the discussions at the Ministerial Council was occupied by Kosovo problems and conflict situations on the territory of the CIS. A number of decisions have been adopted, in particular, on Georgia, Moldova, on strengthening the capabilities of the OSCE, and on Central Asia. The provision on the territorial integrity of the FRY was confirmed.

Ministers recognized the desirability of taking a number of measures to further strengthen the OSCE, primarily in the areas of early warning and conflict prevention, crisis management and post-conflict reconstruction.

The sixth OSCE summit took place on November 18-19, 1999 in Istanbul. The Russian delegation was headed by B.N. Yeltsin. The summit signed the Charter for European Security, an agreement on adapting the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, adopted the final Political Declaration and the modernized Vienna Document on Confidence Building Measures as a basis for further work.

On November 27-28, 2000, the eighth meeting of the OSCE Ministerial Council took place in Vienna. It adopted a declaration on the role of the OSCE in South Eastern Europe, a decision to strengthen the OSCE's activities in the fight against human trafficking, and approved a document adopted within the framework of the Forum for Security Co-operation on limiting illicit trafficking and proliferation of small arms and light weapons. Due to fundamental differences, the ministers failed to adopt the final general political document of the meeting - the ministerial declaration.

On December 3-4, 2001, the ninth meeting of the OSCE Ministerial Council took place in Bucharest. The main political document of the meeting was the ministerial declaration. Also accepted:

the Plan of Action against Terrorism, which contains the Organization's long-term program of work in this area;

Document on strengthening the role of the OSCE as a forum for political dialogue;

A set of statements on regional issues (Georgia and Moldova, Nagorno-Karabakh, South-Eastern Europe and Central Asia);

A number of operational decisions on the humanitarian dimension of the OSCE activities.

The main outcome of the meeting is the creation of prerequisites for overcoming the systemic crisis of the OSCE, in which it found itself at the beginning of the 21st century due to the priority attention paid to humanitarian and human rights discussions to the detriment of issues of economic and military-political cooperation.

On June 12, 2002, the Lisbon International Conference adopted the final document "Preventing and Combating Terrorism", which assessed the role of international and regional organizations in the implementation of strategies and plans to counter terrorism and formulated the principles of cooperation between them.

On December 1-2, 2003 in Maastricht (Netherlands), the eleventh meeting of the OSCE Ministerial Council was held, where a number of important decisions in the field of military and political security were approved: on the destruction of surplus conventional ammunition, on strengthening control over the proliferation of man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS) , Best Practice Guide for Small Arms and Light Weapons.

On January 15, 2004 in Vienna, at a meeting of the OSCE Permanent Council, the Russian side proposed changing the current view of the OSCE as an instrument for serving the interests of individual states and groups and making efforts to achieve the main goal of the OSCE - the creation of an indivisible pan-European security space with common principles and rules for all.

SOUTH-EAST ASIA TREATY ORGANIZATION (SEATO) - (English South-East Asia Treaty Organization - SEATO) - a military-political grouping in Southeast Asia. It was formalized by an agreement signed in Manila (Philippines) on September 8, 1954 by representatives of the USA, Great Britain, France (since 1965, France began to limit its participation), Australia, New Zealand, Thailand, the Philippines and Pakistan (in 1973 Pakistan withdrew from organizations).

In September 1975, a decision was made to dissolve the organization. In June 1977, it ceased to exist.

The WARSAW PACT ORGANIZATION (WTS) was created on the basis of the Warsaw Pact of 1955 on friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance, which was signed on May 14 in Warsaw by Bulgaria, Hungary, the GDR, Poland, Romania, the USSR, Czechoslovakia and Albania (since 1962 Albania did not participate in the work of the Organization created on the basis of the treaty, and in September 1968 withdrew from the Organization). The conclusion of the treaty was caused by the aggressive activities of the NATO bloc to neutralize it, ensure the security of the participating states and maintain peace in Europe.

The participants in the Warsaw Treaty Organization declared that the treaty was open for accession by other states, regardless of their social and political systems. The member states of the Warsaw Treaty Organization undertook to refrain from the threat or use of force, and in the event of an armed attack on any of them, to provide immediate assistance to the victim of aggression by all necessary means including the use of armed force. The members of the WTO, in accordance with its terms and the UN Charter, pledged to act in the spirit of friendship and cooperation to strengthen economic and cultural ties, following the principles of mutual respect for independence, sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of each other and other states.

Within the framework of the ATS, a unified command of the Armed Forces would be created, which, together with the Military Council and the headquarters, would manage the activities of the Joint Armed Forces (the headquarters is located in Moscow). The supreme body of the ATS was the Political Consultative Committee (PAC). As a rule, the leaders of the communist and workers' parties, as well as the heads of governments of the states belonging to the Warsaw Pact, took part in its meetings, and its bodies were: the Committee of Foreign Ministers and the joint Secretariat, established in 1976 and the Committee of Defense Ministers, created in 1969 On April 26, 1985, the term of the Warsaw Pact Organization was extended by 20 years. However, by the end of the 80s of the 20th century, due to the beginning of the collapse of the communist bloc, the ATS ceased to exist and was dissolved.

ORGANIZATION OF THE NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY

(NATO) - (English North Atlantic Treaty Organization - NATO) - a military-political grouping (bloc), including 17 states of Western and Central Europe, as well as the United States and Canada. Created on the basis of the Washington Treaty (dated April 4, 1949). The area of ​​responsibility of the block covers the territory of the participating states and the area Atlantic Ocean north of the Tropic of Cancer.

To conduct regular consultations and make decisions on all issues affecting the security of states -

participants, the North Atlantic Council, the governing political body of the alliance, was created. As a rule, it meets at regular, once every 2 years, sessions at the level of heads of state and government, 2 times a year - by the ministers of defense and foreign affairs. The current affairs of the union are managed by the NATO Council at the level of permanent representatives, which meets at least once a week. A Political Committee has been established to conduct political consultations, and an Economic Committee has been established to discuss economic issues.

The main military body of NATO is the Military Planning Committee, which determines the most important directions in the construction and use of the alliance's armed forces. The International Military Headquarters of the Armed Forces, members of the alliance of states, operates. Nuclear issues block, including the principles and procedures for the use of nuclear weapons, is considered by the Nuclear Planning Group.

NATO's executive body is the International Secretariat (headed by the Secretary General).

In addition, the Secretary General is Chairman of the North Atlantic Council, the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, the Defense Planning Committee and the Nuclear Planning Group.

NATO maintains military-political and other ties with the states of the Euro-Atlantic region through the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council, the Partnership for Peace program and individual partnership programs.

Despite the course proclaimed by the NATO leadership to increase the political component of the bloc's activities, its military component occupies a dominant position. In particular, the new strategic concept of NATO, approved at the Washington summit of the alliance in April 1999, fixed the possibility of using military force without the sanctions of the UN Security Council, including outside the geographic scope of the Washington Treaty, which, in particular, manifested itself in drawing in March-June 1999 massive missile and bomb attacks on Yugoslavia.

At the beginning of the 21st century, Russian-NATO relations are built on the basis of the "Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between the Russian Federation and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization" signed in Paris on May 27, 1997. A Permanent Joint Council (JPC) was established to provide "a mechanism for consultation, coordination to the greatest extent possible, as needed, for joint decisions and joint action on security issues of common concern." The PCA meets twice a year at the Foreign and Defense Ministerial level, and monthly at the Ambassador/Permanent Representative level to the North Atlantic Council. The PCA defines and discusses issues of Russia-NATO cooperation in the political, military, parliamentary, scientific, technical and other spheres.

Until October 1998, when the leadership of the alliance headed for a forceful solution to the Kosovo crisis, Russian-NATO relations developed constructively on the whole. In connection with the NATO military action against the FRY, Russia suspended all contacts with the alliance and refused to take part in its anniversary summit in April 1999 in Washington. After the cessation of NATO air strikes against Yugoslavia, Russia resumed contacts with the alliance, limiting them exclusively to issues of interaction within the framework of peacekeeping operations in Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina. The communication group of the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces also resumed its activities under the headquarters of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Allied Armed Forces (JAF) in Europe.

In February 2000, following a visit to Moscow by Alliance Secretary General J. Robertson, Russia-NATO relations were partially "thawed out." The Russian side has embarked on a phased dosed resumption of relations with the alliance in areas that meet the interests of the Russian Federation.

In May 2001, a regular meeting of the Union of Right Forces was held at the level of foreign ministers in Budapest. Questions were discussed: the situation in the Balkans and prospects for bilateral cooperation.

On October 3, 2001, a meeting of the President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin with J. Robertson. At it, the NATO Secretary General came up with an initiative to create a working body to deepen and qualitatively change relations between Russia and NATO.

On May 28, 2002, the leaders of the NATO states and the President of Russia signed in Rome the "Declaration on the New Quality of Relations between Russia and NATO", meaning that there are actually two parallel structures - the NATO military-political bloc and the political organization ("G20"), in which , along with NATO member states, Russia is included.

The new Russia-NATO Council is interested in nine topics: the fight against terrorism, crisis management, non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, arms control, European theater missile defense, search and rescue at sea, military-to-military and military reform cooperation, emergency civil planning and response, countering new threats and challenges. The newly formed council will work under the chairmanship of the NATO Secretary General, and its meetings at the level of foreign and defense ministers will be held twice a year.

Thus, the G20 structure was formed, which determines the special status of Russia without formal membership in the alliance.

On December 4, 2003, a regular meeting of the Russia-NATO Council (NRC) at the level of foreign ministers was held in Brussels, where the parties reaffirmed their desire to strengthen partnership in the spirit of the new quality of relations achieved after the Rome Summit.

Problems of security and military-political interaction of the post-Soviet countries.

Military-political cooperation of Azerbaijan with NATO and Western countries

11. Participants in international relations. Concept and main characteristics. Sovereign states, international organizations and transnational organizations as participants in international relations.

Military-political bloc - an alliance or agreement of states united for the purpose of joint actions to solve common political, economic and military tasks.

NATO or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was formed in 1949. The purpose of NATO, according to the official documents of the alliance, is the collective defense of its member states, but after the changes that took place in Europe in the 90s, the NATO bloc proclaimed itself a fundamental force in the process of expansion security and guarantor of stability in Europe as a whole.

Initially, this block included: Belgium, Great Britain, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Canada, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the USA and France, which left the military organization of the block in the period 1961-2009.

In 1952, Turkey and Greece joined NATO, in 1955 - the Federal Republic of Germany, in 1982 - Spain, in 1999 - Hungary, Czech Republic, Poland, in 2004 - Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia , Romania, Slovenia and Bulgaria, in 2009 - Albania and Croatia.

The main striking forces of this bloc were (and still are) the US and British armies. The bloc was formed to counter the "Soviet military threat", in order to prevent the expansion of the spheres of influence of the USSR. The main spheres of influence of this bloc were the European theater of operations (theater of operations) and the entire North Atlantic. The total strength of NATO's armed forces at the end of 2008 was about 3.6 million. Total defense spending reached 895 billion dollars, including 300 billion for European countries and 575 billion for the United States. As a percentage of GDP as a whole for NATO, they amounted to 2.6%, while in the United States this figure was 4%, and in European countries - 1.7%.

The highest political body of NATO is the North Atlantic Council (NATO Council), which consists of representatives of all member states. It can be convened at the level of Permanent Representatives (Ambassadors), Defense Ministers, Heads of State and Government. Headed by the Secretary General of NATO. The Council meets weekly, sometimes more often, at the level of Permanent Representatives, twice a year - at the level of foreign ministers, defense ministers, as well as special occasions at the level of heads of state and government.

The highest military-political body of the organization is the Military Planning Committee. He decides on the participation of the member countries of the organization in the process of military planning, and is also in charge of the functioning of the military structure of NATO. Its decision also approves the goals of the military component of NATO and the role of the heads of military departments of member countries in long-term military planning. Headed by the Secretary General of NATO.

The main bodies of NATO also include the Nuclear Planning Group, which usually meets twice a year at the level of defense ministers, usually before meetings of the NATO Council. The Nuclear Planning Group has the highest decision-making authority in NATO on matters of nuclear policy, similar to the North Atlantic Council and the Defense Planning Committee in matters of their competence. Its discussions cover a wide range of issues of nuclear policy, including issues of ensuring the safety, security and survivability of nuclear weapons, communications and information systems, as well as issues of deployment of nuclear forces. Topics discussed also include broader issues of common concern, such as nuclear arms control and nuclear proliferation.

The role of the Nuclear Planning Group is to review NATO's nuclear policy in the light of the ever-changing security challenges in the international environment and to adapt it as necessary. At its meetings, Alliance members participate in the development of NATO's nuclear policy and nuclear posture decisions, whether or not they have nuclear weapons. The policies agreed upon thus reflect the common position of all participating countries. Decisions in the NSG are made by consensus, as in all NATO committees.

The official languages ​​of NATO are English and French. The headquarters of the NATO Council is located in Brussels (Belgium).

Since 1994, NATO has been implementing the Partnership for Peace program - cooperation with 23 European states and the former Soviet republics of Central Asia that are not members of the organization.

Since 2001, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) has been deployed on the territory of Afghanistan. In the fall of 2008, the ISAF numbered about 50,000; 26 NATO countries and 15 other countries took part in the mission.

In 1951 a military bloc was created ANZUS - a regional military community of Australia, New Zealand and the United States, designed to coordinate efforts for the collective defense of the Pacific Ocean. This block, unlike NATO, did not have a single command, a single armed forces and a permanent headquarters. At present, this bloc has actually ceased to exist, although it has not been officially disbanded.

In 1954, in order to counteract Soviet political expansion into the region of South and Southeast Asia, a bloc was created SEATO . It included: Australia, France, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, Thailand, UK and USA. However, it did not last long and in 1977, by mutual agreement of the participating countries, ceased to exist.

Collective Security Treaty Organization ( CSTO ) is a military-political union created by the CIS states on the basis of the Collective Security Treaty signed on May 15, 1992. The Treaty is automatically renewed every five years.

It included Armenia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Russia. In accordance with the Treaty, the participating States ensure their security on a collective basis. In the event of a threat to the security, territorial integrity and sovereignty of one or more participating States, or a threat to international peace and security, the participating States will immediately activate the mechanism of joint consultations in order to coordinate their positions and take measures to eliminate the threat that has arisen.
The supreme body of the organization is the Collective Security Council. The Council consists of the heads of member states. The Council considers the fundamental issues of the organization's activities and makes decisions aimed at the implementation of its goals and objectives, as well as ensures coordination and joint activities Member States to achieve these goals.
The Council of Foreign Ministers is a consultative and executive body of the organization for the coordination of interaction between member states in the field of foreign policy.
The Council of Defense Ministers (CMO) is an advisory and executive body of the organization for coordinating the interaction of member states in the field of military policy, military development and military-technical cooperation.
The Committee of Secretaries of Security Councils is an advisory and executive body of the organization for the coordination of interaction between member states in the field of ensuring their national security.
The Secretary General of the organization is the highest administrative officer of the organization and manages the secretariat of the organization. Appointed by the decision of the CSC from among the citizens of the Member States and is accountable to the Council. Currently, he is Nikolai Bordyuzha.
The secretariat of the organization is a permanent working body of the organization for the implementation of organizational, informational, analytical and advisory support for the activities of the bodies of the organization.
The CSTO Joint Headquarters is a permanent working body of the CSTO organization and CMO, responsible for preparing proposals and implementing decisions on the military component of the CSTO.
Within the framework of the CSTO in 2001, the Collective Rapid Reaction Forces were created. They consist of 10 battalions: three each from Russia and Tajikistan, two each from Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan. The total number of collective forces is about 4 thousand people. The aviation component (10 planes and 14 helicopters) is located at the Russian military airbase in Kyrgyzstan.
In the event of a large-scale military conflict, the CSTO member states will be obliged to provide their military contingents or all their armed forces to repel aggression.
On December 2, 2004, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution granting the Collective Security Treaty Organization observer status in the UN General Assembly.
On February 4, 2009, in Moscow, the leaders of the CSTO countries approved the creation of the Collective Rapid Reaction Force (CRRF). According to the signed document, the CRRF will be used to repel military aggression, conduct special operations to combat international terrorism and extremism, transnational organized crime, drug trafficking, as well as to eliminate the consequences of emergency situations.
On April 3, 2009, a representative of the CSTO secretariat stated that Iran in the future may also receive the status of an observer country in the CSTO.

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)

Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) is an international regional organization. APEC is the largest economic association (forum), which accounts for over 60% of world GDP and 47% of world trade (2004). Formed in 1989 in Canberra on the initiative of the Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand. The main goals of the organization are to ensure a free open trade regime and strengthen regional cooperation

Andean Community

The goals of the Andean Community are to promote the development of the participating countries through their integration and socio-economic cooperation; accelerating economic growth and employment; creation of a Latin American common market. The main directions of the Andean Group are reduced to the development of a unified economic policy, the coordination of ongoing projects, the harmonization of legislation: the exercise of control over the application of legal norms adopted within the Andean Group and their unified interpretation.

Arctic Council

The Arctic Council is an international organization established in 1989 at the initiative of Finland to protect the unique nature of the northern polar zone. The Arctic Council includes eight subarctic countries.

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN, ASEAN)

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations is a political, economic and cultural regional intergovernmental organization of countries located in Southeast Asia. ASEAN was formed on August 9, 1967 in Bangkok with the signing of the "ASEAN Declaration", better known as the "Bangkok Declaration"

African Union (AU, AU)

The African Union (AU) is an international organization of 53 African states, the successor of the Organization of African Unity (OAU). The course towards the creation of the African Union was proclaimed on September 9, 1999 at a meeting of African heads of state in Sirte (Libya) on the initiative of Muammar Gaddafi. On July 9, 2002, the OAU was officially reorganized into the AU.

"Big Eight" (G8)

The G8 - by most definitions, is a group of seven industrialized countries of the world and Russia. The unofficial forum of the leaders of these countries (Russia, USA, Great Britain, France, Japan, Germany, Canada, Italy) with the participation of the European Commission, within the framework of which the approaches to pressing international problems are being coordinated, is also called.

World Trade Organization (WTO, WTO)

The World Trade Organization (WTO) (eng. World Trade Organization (WTO)) is an international organization established in 1995 to unite various countries in the economic sphere and establish rules for trade between member states. The WTO is the successor to an agreement called the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The headquarters of the WTO is located in Geneva.

GUAM is an interstate organization established in October 1997 by the former Soviet republics - Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova (from 1999 to 2005 Uzbekistan also belonged to the organization). The name of the organization was formed from the first letters of the names of its member countries. Before Uzbekistan left the organization, it was called GUUAM.

EuroAsEC

European Union (EU, EU)

The European Union (EU) is a unique supranational formation consisting of 25 European states that have signed the Treaty on European Union (Maastricht Treaty). It is noteworthy that the European Union itself is not an international organization as such, that is, it is not a subject of international public law, but it has the authority to participate in international relations.

Arab League (LAS)

The League of Arab States (LAS) is an international organization that unites more than 20 Arab and friendly non-Arab countries. Created March 22, 1945. The supreme body of the organization is the Council of the League, in which each of the member states has one vote, the headquarters of the League is located in Cairo.

MERCOSUR (South American Common Market, MERCOSUR)

MERCOSUR is the largest association in South America. MERCOSUR unites 250 million people and more than 75% of the total GDP of the continent. The organization's name comes from the Spanish Mercado Comun del Sur, which means "South American Common Market". The free trade agreement signed by Argentina and Brazil in 1986 was the first step towards the creation of a unified market. Paraguay and Uruguay joined this agreement in 1990.

Organization of American States

(OAS; Organizacion de los estados americanos), was created on April 30, 1948 at the 9th Inter-American Conference in Bogota (Colombia) on the basis of the Pan-American Union, which existed since 1889.

Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO)

The Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) is a military-political union created by the former Soviet republics on the basis of the Collective Security Treaty (CST), signed on May 15, 1992. The contract is renewed automatically every five years.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO, NATO)

NATO (NATO, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, North Atlantic Alliance) is a military-political alliance created on the basis of the North Atlantic Treaty signed on April 4, 1949 in Washington by twelve states: the USA, Great Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Canada, Italy, Portugal, Norway, Denmark, Iceland. Later, other European states also joined NATO. As of 2004, NATO includes 26 states.

Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE, OSCE)

OSCE (Eng. OSCE, Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) -- Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, the largest regional security organization, which includes 56 states of Europe, Central Asia and North America. The organization sets itself the task of revealing the possibility of conflicts, their prevention, settlement and elimination of consequences.

Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC)

United Nations (UN)

The United Nations (UN) is an international organization created to maintain and strengthen international peace and security and develop cooperation between states. The foundations of its activity and structure were developed during the Second World War by the leading members of the anti-Hitler coalition.

Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC, OPEC)

OPEC, or the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), is a cartel created by oil-producing powers to stabilize oil prices. Members of this organization are countries whose economy largely depends on income from oil exports. The main goal of the organization is to control world oil prices.

South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC)

North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA, NAFTA)

The North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA) is a free trade agreement between Canada, the United States and Mexico based on the model of the European Community (European Union). NAFTA went into effect on January 1, 1994.

Arab Maghreb Union (UMU)

Arab Maghreb Union (Union du Maghreb Arabe UMA) -- Algeria, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Tunisia. Pan-Arab organization aimed at economic and political unity in North Africa. The idea of ​​creating a union appeared along with the independence of Tunisia and Morocco in 1958.

Commonwealth of Democratic Choice (CDC)

The Commonwealth of Democratic Choice (CDC) is a “community of democracies of the Baltic-Black Sea-Caspian region”, an alternative organization to the CIS, established on December 2, 2005 at the founding forum in Kiev (Ukraine).

Commonwealth of Nations (British Commonwealth, Commonwelth)

The Commonwealth, or the Commonwealth of Nations (English The Commonwealth, or English The Commonwealth of Nations; until 1946 the British Commonwealth of Nations - English The British Commonwealth of Nations) is a voluntary interstate association of independent sovereign states, which includes Great Britain and almost all its former dominions, colonies and protectorates.

Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS, CIS)

The Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) is an interstate association of most of the former Soviet republics of the USSR. Originally formed by Belarus, Russia and Ukraine; in the Agreement on the creation of the CIS, signed on December 8, 1991 in Minsk, these states stated that the USSR ceases to exist in conditions of deep crisis and collapse, and declared their desire to develop cooperation in the political, economic, humanitarian, cultural and other fields.

Commonwealth of Unrecognized States (CIS-2)

The Commonwealth of Unrecognized States (CIS-2) is an informal association created for consultations, mutual assistance, coordination and joint actions by unrecognized self-proclaimed state entities on the post-Soviet territory - Abkhazia, the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic and South Ossetia.

Council of Europe

The Council of Europe is the oldest international political organization in Europe. Its main stated goal is to build a united Europe based on the principles of freedom, democracy, the protection of human rights and the rule of law. One of the most significant achievements of the Council of Europe is the development and adoption of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC)

Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC) is a regional international organization. The English name of the organization does not contain the word "Persian" because the Arab states prefer to call this gulf "Arab".

Pacific Union (Pacific Island)

The Schengen Agreement

The Schengen Agreement is an agreement "On the abolition of passport customs control between a number of countries of the European Union", originally signed on June 14, 1985 by seven European states (Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Germany, Portugal and Spain). It entered into force on March 26, 1995. The agreement was signed in Schengen, a small town in Luxembourg.

Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO)

In 2003, the heads of government of the SCO member countries signed the Program of multilateral trade and economic cooperation for 20 years and a plan was drawn up. The plan includes over a hundred specific projects, themes and areas of cooperation, and also provides mechanisms for their implementation. Emphasis is placed on the following areas - transport communications, energy, telecommunications, agriculture, tourism, water management and nature protection.

27. Give a description of Ukraine from a political point of view (regime, system, form of government, system, party and electoral system, type of political culture and political behavior).

It is rather problematic to classify the political regime in Ukraine in the unstable socio-political situation during the period of transformation. It's more about mixing. different types regimes in the absence of any one that clearly dominates. On the one hand, there is a division of power, the Law on Parties, freedom of speech, suffrage, on the other hand, the dependence of judges, significant restrictions on access and dissemination of information, covert censorship, uncontrolled use of administrative resources during the election period, and manipulation of voting results in favor of pro-government candidates. Examples of this kind testify to the serious authoritarian tendencies of power with rather weak democratic institutions of its limitation.

In accordance with the Constitution, Ukraine is a sovereign and independent, democratic, social, legal state. The constitutional structure of Ukraine is based on the principle of the priority of human and civil rights and freedoms. The people exercise state power directly, as well as through the system of state bodies.

According to the state system, Ukraine is a unitary state. It is a single, united state, the administrative-territorial units of which do not have political independence. A unitary state has a single legal system, a single system of higher authorities, a single citizenship, etc.

The state structure of Ukraine is based on the principles of unity, indivisibility and integrity of the state territory, the complexity of economic development and the manageability of its individual parts, taking into account national and regional interests, national and cultural traditions, geographical and demographic features, natural and climatic conditions. The administrative-territorial units of Ukraine are: region, district, city, settlement and village council (one or several villages).

about politics, there are different points of view in determining the type of political system in our country, which is explained not only by different approaches, but primarily by the complexity and ambiguity of political processes in Ukraine associated with the transition from a totalitarian system to a democratic one.

Based on the formational approach, the political system in Ukraine can be attributed to the post-communist one, which combines both elements of the command-administrative system and the modern democratic system. This is manifested, on the one hand, in the preservation of the structures and functions of the former administrative apparatus, the adaptation of many forms and procedures of the Soviet system of law to market conditions, etc., and on the other hand, the constitutional foundations for the formation and functioning of government bodies, the development of civil and political organizations, legal ensuring the protection of the rights of citizens, etc. Read in full: http://all-politologija.ru/ru/politicheskaya-sistema-ukrainy

At the present stage of the political regime of Ukraine, the following features are characteristic: 1) a cumbersome structure of government institutions with poorly developed public institutions of influence on power; 2) paternalistic, guardian functions of the state not only in the socio-economic sphere, but also in promoting the development of elements of civil society; 3) the mechanism of checks and balances is ineffective; 4) political unstructured state power; 5) the party system is financially, materially dependent on the authorities and financially dominant social groups; 6) weak interaction between parties and pressure groups; 8) the absence of clearly defined ideological orientations, civilized forms of ideological pluralism, civilized centrism in politics.

State power in Ukraine is exercised according to the principle of its division into legislative, executive and judicial. Legislative, executive and judicial authorities exercise their powers within the limits established by the Constitution and in accordance with the laws of Ukraine.

Ukraine is a unitary parliamentary-presidential republic. Government - Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine. The highest legislative body is the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine. Judicial system – supreme and constitutional courts

The Ukrainian regions have their own legislative and executive power: regional Soviets of People's Deputies and heads of regional administrations (governors) appointed by the country's president.

On December 8, 2004, the Constitution (1996) was amended to transform Ukraine from a presidential-parliamentary to a parliamentary-presidential republic.

The popularly elected President remained the head of state. He retained quite significant powers: the right to veto laws adopted by the Verkhovna Rada, the right to implement foreign policy, the right to dissolve parliament, the right to make a number of appointments, including the ministers of defense and foreign affairs, the chairman of the SBU, the Prosecutor General, etc.

However, the right to form the Cabinet of Ministers passes from the President to the parliamentary majority, which must be formed by the parties that won the elections. And the Cabinet of Ministers now bears political responsibility only before the Verkhovna Rada. In this regard, the electoral system also changed: the mixed system was replaced by a proportional electoral system with a 3% barrier to entry.

Thus, as a result of the constitutional reform, the powers of the President are being reduced, while the powers of the Verkhovna Rada and the Cabinet of Ministers, especially in the sphere of domestic policy, are being expanded.

The following characteristics of the political system of Ukraine are distinguished:

It is relatively stable (on the surface), but can easily become unstable due to conflicts between the main political blocs.

It is distinguished by a relatively low rate of social processes and is not sufficiently receptive to innovations.

The system does not have sufficiently effective modern traditions and experience of independent functioning.

It is centralized, with some elements of regionalism and decentralization.

Differs in low reactivity.

It is a system of transitional (from the Soviet model) type.

A multi-party system is being formed in Ukraine. In 2010, over 150 parties were registered in the country. Several dozen of them participated in the elections.

The last parliamentary elections were held in 2014.

The proportional electoral system of Ukraine provides an opportunity to allocate seats in parliament according to the number of votes received by a party or bloc in elections. Therefore, many parties have a chance to get their representatives into parliament. But the parliamentary barrier (3%) limits these chances. To increase their chances of overcoming the rating barrier, some parties form pre-election blocs.

MILITARY THOUGHT No. 2(3-4)/2000, pp. 5-12

Lieutenant General E.A.KARPOV ,

candidate of military sciences

Colonel G.A.MOKHOROV ,

doctor of historical sciences, professor

Retired ColonelV.A. RODIN ,

Doctor of Philosophy, Professor

FOR many centuries mankind has waged numerous wars without creating any stable military-political associations of states. The prerequisites for military coalitions in the true meaning of this concept begin to take shape only in the era of transition from feudalism to capitalism. The term "military coalition" itself was first coined at the end of the 18th century to refer to the military-political alliance concluded in 1792 between Austria and Prussia in order to prevent the expansion of the influence of the French Revolution. Subsequently, Russia joined this alliance, which played a decisive role in the defeat of Napoleonic France. In modern and recent times, military-political alliances, with the strengthening of interstate ties, and especially as a result of the intensification of the struggle for the division and redistribution of spheres of influence, acquire new impulses in their development. There is an increase in the role of coalitions not only as an instrument of warfare, but also as a factor influencing the world order, the entire course of world development, which was associated with the emergence of large-scale interregional alliances of states.

In order to try to understand this complex process of block formation, let us resort to the methodological guidelines expressed in synergetics (called by its creators the “new worldview”).

The world community from the standpoint of synergetics can be represented as non-linear, open, oscillatory, complexly organized And self-organizing system of states. Self-organization finds expression in the evolution of relationships, in complex combinations of states: from order to chaos and vice versa. Characteristic manifestations of chaos in the world community on a global, interregional and zonal-geographical scale are periods of unrest, wars, upheavals, deep crises and great disasters. Such states are usually inherent in extreme situations, those periods in history when all kinds of contenders for world domination operate in the international arena, when a peculiar situation of extreme disorder arises, which is characterized by sharp deviations from established world connections and relations. When chaotic states reach a certain limit, which leads to the unpredictability of the outcome of confrontational situations, and the peak of disorder begins to threaten not only security, but also the very existence of state communities and the prospects for the development of the world community as a whole, there occurs, as synergetics says, bifurcation (separation, branching , fork), in other words, the zone of settlement, the creation of a certain type of world order. This is how the self-organization of the world system of states takes place.

The evolution of an oscillatory, non-linear, non-equilibrium and self-organizing world system of states finds its most vivid expression in changes occurring from time to time in the centers of power, so to speak, mutual transitions, displacements of power poles. We are talking about mutual transitions of power states (multipolar, bipolar, unipolar structures of the world order) in various coalition configurations and diverse economic, political, including those not sealed by military agreements, integration associations. Unfortunately, at the present time the trend towards the formation of a unipolar world remains. It should be noted, however, that history, figuratively speaking, does not tolerate a long (excessive) existence of an international system of states based on a unipolar center of power. Sooner or later, “ordering” occurs in world structures, the whole point is how this happens, at what cost, in what ways, in what forms a multipolar world is formed.

The balance of forces of groupings of states creates relative security for a certain time, and for the time being ensures world order and stability. Non-equilibrium and oscillatory state as a fundamental feature of a living, self-organizing system (in this case, international relations) makes it very sensitive to fluctuations, i.e. deviations, both internal (within the unions) and external (depending on the foreign policy situation, the strategic situation), which create a field of variations∗ for choosing the future path of development. Such a choice is made when creating a new structure, which, in turn, cannot remain the same, again due to its openness and ability to generate changes in itself. Society, as an open system, in fact, can only exist in such a pulsating state. At the same time, it is important to search for stable, repeating "structures of order" in an unstable, stochastically organized world. In such "movements of centers of power", in diverse integration (or, on the contrary, disintegration) phenomena, intrastate processes, special states of society, nation at each given period of time play a huge role. Of great importance are intra-regional ties and relations, the presence of traditions, experience, a certain trust in partnership or allied relations both in the history of individual states and on a regional scale.

The theorist S. Huntington, popular in the West, in response to his opponents, predicts the possibility of the collapse of the United States of America itself. According to the Census Bureau, he notes, by 2050, American society will be 23% Spanish descent, 16% black and 10% Asian American. Will the new settlers be assimilated into the formerly dominant European culture of the United States? If not, if the US becomes a truly multicultural country suffering from an internal conflict of civilizations, will it survive as a liberal democracy? Will the dewesternization of the United States, if it occurs, simultaneously mean de-Americanization? If that happens, if America stops adhering to its liberal-democratic, European-rooted ideology, the US as we know it will cease to exist and follow another ideologically motivated superpower (meaning the Soviet Union) into the dustbin of history. Auth.).

In the general complex of prerequisites, conditions and reasons for the formation of military-political alliances, a significant role belongs to the subjective factor. It involves a whole "cut" of accidents associated with the personal, intellectual, psychological, socio-cultural qualities of state leaders, leaders of political parties, social movements. As historical experience shows, the subjective characteristics of leaders, their ability to foresee the course of events, sanity or, on the contrary, reckless impulses, and finally, personal mistakes and miscalculations expressed in political motivation, have a very significant impact on the genesis, the process of formation of certain integration associations, including military-political alliances. Accidents, and there are a great many of them in the historical process, even if they outwardly seem quite insignificant, turn out to be fateful from the point of view of synergetics when they fall into the resonance of events, a combination of circumstances, and thus play a very significant role in the evolution of world interstate relations.

A well-known difficulty is the analysis of the very mechanism of the emergence of each specific military-political alliance, taking into account the whole complex of causes, conditions, factors influencing the formation of an alliance of a certain type, configuration.

Questions classification of military-political alliances with the elucidation of the factors and conditions for the formation of the latter, they have not been specially developed in our research plan. In Soviet times, in the mass and numerous propaganda literature devoted to the characteristics of NATO organizations and the former Warsaw Pact, the essence of this problem was reduced to a characterization of the social class nature of military alliances. And there was a certain amount of truth in this, since there really was a sharp ideological confrontation, including (especially prominently) on the military bloc demarcation. However, the excessive ideologization of alliances narrowed the view of their genesis, did not allow them to be more specific and detailed classification, to reveal complex allied ties. The vision of the unions was presented in a simplified way, in black and white: progressive unions and reactionary blocs.

During this period, NATO headquarters and research centers intensively studied the versatile and multifaceted problems of military-political alliances, the nuances of their relations. The research results were reflected in theorized publications and widely discussed in the media. Suffice it to recall that during the peak of the Cold War, an annotated analytical collection of materials on questions of military-political alliances was published in Washington. Western experts, such as G. Liska, R. E. Osgood, A. Cottrell, I. Doherty and many others, in their numerous speeches in the press considered different aspects military alliances in the global balance of power, but have always represented the North Atlantic Alliance as a means of collective security.

Different opinions are also expressed on questions of the origin and classification of military-political alliances. The French military theorist E. Murez at one time argued that coalitions are the result of rivalry between two powers - dominating the continent and dominating the sea. They dispute the acquired intermediate territories from each other. Based on this, Murez subdivided coalitions into offensive coalitions, created around the “continental troublemaker”, and defensive ones, formed around the dominant power at sea. Failures, in his opinion, usually befall the former, while the latter is accompanied by success. There are clear hints here at the superiority of Western military alliances over others, including Eastern ones.

NATO theorists have a whole set of features for classifying coalition alliances. When determining the type of union, the main criterion is the scale criterion, geopolitical(national geographic) or technical, but most often civilizational. Thus, the American expert on the theory of military alliances, KJ. ​​Holsti, in his treatise "Diplomatic Coalitions and Military Alliances", placed in the collection "Alliances in International Politics", proposes to classify military-political alliances according to the following main features: the nature of the situation in which mutual obligations become active; the type of obligations assumed by the participants in the union or treaty; the degree of cooperation or integration of the armed forces of the members of the alliance; geographical scope of the union or treaty. One of the founders of the concept of political realism, the American political scientist G. Morgenthau, supplements this classification and introduces the concept of "ideological union", within which, in his opinion, "ideological interests prevail over material ones."

Western theorists usually refer to the former Warsaw Pact as an ideological union. Nevertheless, the North Atlantic Alliance in their previous and current interpretations is not devoid of ideological content. Ideological criterion of dividing lines and coalition formations proved to be quite survivable. Despite the absence of the former ideological confrontation, it is currently presented in foreign publications in a variety of guises, but most often in the form of civilizational and cultural-psychological differences of nations and peoples, constituting coalitions. Attempts at ideological justification do not stop principle of "atlantization" European security.

The ideological subtext appears in one way or another in various conceptual developments. For example, in the article by S.A. Bar and D.Ya. Bondarenko, Master of Political Science of Lancaster University (Great Britain), “On the Question of Coalitions and Dividing Lines in Europe,” the civilizational criterion for the formation of military-political alliances is again emphasized. At the same time, the authors agree that in the new geopolitical conditions the problem of balancing interstate relations is of particular relevance, they recognize that military coalitions do not serve as a guarantee of stability and security, do not contribute to the maintenance of lasting peace, do not dispute (presumably dramatic - Auth.) effects of power imbalances between coalitions. At the same time, they consider the idea of ​​collective security to be utopian and, therefore, the concept based on this idea to be very untenable. S.A. Bar and D.Ya. Bondarenko admit that the expansion of NATO to the East is contrary to the interests of Russia, that the current security system of the West is directed against it. The whole point of the article is to affirm the need for a dividing line between NATO and Russia due to their differences, predetermined by geopolitical, ideological and cultural and psychological factors, as well as the lack of identity internal device states.

S. Huntington is an active preacher of civilizational differences in the formation of coalition associations of states. “The fault line between civilizations,” he writes, “is the line of future fronts.” This will be, in his opinion, the final phase of the evolution of global conflicts in the modern world.

It seems to us that for all the indisputable significance of the civilizational identity of nations and states from the point of view of the problem of the formation of military alliances, nevertheless, to reduce the matter only to this factor when considering the process under study is unlawful, since in this case the picture of the classification of the phenomenon under consideration is significantly coarsened and simplified, the set of many other criteria and signs of the unification of countries and peoples into military treaty organizations is sharply narrowed. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine that military-integration associations will ever form on the planet strictly on a civilizational basis. After all, civilizations have existed for centuries. It is not clear why they are only now challenging the world order. In our opinion, everything is much more complicated. The history of mankind is full of wars between opposing alliances within the same civilization. On the contrary, quite a few military alliances were created with the participation of states of heterogeneous civilizations with very different types of internal structure. Our opponents, supporters of a civilizational approach to the consideration of these problems, may object, stating that this was the case in the past. But this argument cannot be accepted. We still live in a dangerous, unpredictable world where completely unexpected variants of state associations are possible. It should be noted that just now new bridges of mutual influences between civilizations are being formed, as evidenced by many facts. At the same time, there are intra-civilizational contradictions. As for the North Atlantic Alliance, it does not, strictly speaking, meet the civilizational criterion. This confirms at least Turkey's membership in NATO with its obvious features of a civilizational nature. S. Huntington, for example, considers Turkey the most striking and a typical example a country split from within with very strong traditions of Turkic civilization. That is why the Western elite is opposed to Turkey's admission to the European Union. As we see, the alliance's strategic interest takes precedence over all other factors.

Historical experience shows that an indispensable condition for the formation of any military alliance is the ideological and informational justification for the need to create it. Here, in general, there are no or almost no exceptions. But this does not give grounds to assert that union agreements are concluded only on ideological grounds or that there may be some kind of “ideological unions”. At the same time, the ideological support and information cover of unions can have a variety of forms and modifications, including nationalist, geopolitical, civilizational, religious and confessional, and many others. In our time there are no grounds for the revival of ideological arguments in the course of the creation of bloc organizations along social-class or socio-economic lines. Gone are the intentions to crush any socio-economic systems, state structures. The principle of peaceful coexistence, which was in effect during the Cold War period, has been replaced by the principle of peoples' freedom to choose the social system that corresponds to their historical traditions, mentality and interests.

Based on the foregoing, we will try to present the most complete picture of the entire variety of known in history and possible (with varying degrees of probability) types of military-political alliances, as well as give their classification (see figure). Each of the presented types of contractual allied organizations has its own specifics, distinctive features acquired in the process of emergence and evolution.

The classification of military-political alliances according to the indicated criteria, of course, is relative, conditional. It seems difficult and inexpedient to give a rigid and unambiguous typology of military-political alliances. Alliances classified along the same lines may contain features of other military coalitions.

Thus, the North Atlantic Alliance, being interregional, is at the same time an alliance of democratic states, an alliance of a strategic nature with an emphasis on integration ties with a super-powerful military infrastructure, a very unequal degree of intensity of allied relations between various members of the bloc (the United States and Britain on the one hand, Turkey and Greece - on the other), as well as with dubious equality between the allies. Let's take another example. During the hostilities in the Persian Gulf, the United States created multinational forces, which can be legitimately considered an inter-regional coalition of states only for a given period. Such an organizational coalition form can be referred to as situational, tactical (tactical not from the point of view of the theory of military art, but in the international organizational aspect). We are talking about relatively short-term agreements in order to resolve situational military-political or military-operational problems.

Very important (though in a certain sense relative) is the difference between aggressive-offensive and defensive military-political alliances. As a rule, no military alliance openly proclaims aggressive goals, they always hide behind defensive intentions. It is only in the course of actual hostilities that the true nature of the bloc is revealed.

In connection with the classification of various integration associations, some problematic provisions can also be put forward. In our opinion, not always and not at all necessarily the subjects of military-political alliances can only be quite official government bodies and institutions. In modern conditions, when interstate and interregional relations are intensifying on a significant scale, the most diverse political, military, semi-official and non-state, public organizations can become subjects of such unions. Nowadays it became known about the existence undisclosed inter-regional ties between organizations of international terrorism. The terrorists have a plan to fight the "world order" from the Caucasus to the Pamirs, the essence of which is real aggression aimed at destroying the CIS and establishing military dictatorial regimes on its territory. There is information about the support of terrorists by official state institutions countries with theocratic governments. In addition, aggressive terrorist organizations can establish links and relationships with existing military-political alliances. Opinions are expressed in the press that Wahhabism, as the most aggressive version of Islam (and in fact its sect), meets with understanding in Atlantic circles.

With all the countless and dissimilar events world history, the most diverse combinations of the balance of power, the formation and collapse of various coalition configurations, the kaleidoscope of allied and inter-bloc relations, taking into account all the dramatic consequences of the power confrontation, a certain pattern is visible that permeates the entire fabric of interstate relations, especially in the last two centuries. Its essence lies in the fact that as world history develops, the dynamism of interstate relations increases, and the arsenals of destructive military technologies increase unprecedentedly, the need for global effective organizations to stabilize the world order gradually increases. It should be noted that in the 20th century, dramatic changes, catastrophic in their consequences, in the formation of the poles of power (especially on the European continent), which led to two world wars, were quite clearly and clearly manifested.

The disorder of the world order after the First World War was expressed in the imbalance of forces in the international arena, and above all in Europe. The interstate organization of the League of Nations that existed in those years did not fulfill its historical mission, it turned out to be unable to become a stabilizing factor in appeasement, settlement of interstate relations, and was unable to prevent the formation of a powerful interregional aggressive fascist military alliance.

After the Second World War, mankind, taught by bitter experience, having experienced the most difficult shocks, finally acquired a global organization recognized by most peoples and countries - the UN. It was the United Nations, with its branched bodies and institutions, with its entire structure of checks and prohibitions on waging aggressive wars and armed conflicts, that had every opportunity to become a factor in the gradual construction of a structure of genuine, and not "atlantized" collective security. But the creation of an unprecedented military infrastructure, the achievement and excess of the "critical mass" of the numerical strength of the states of the North Atlantic Alliance, the expansion of its aspirations beyond the zone of influence established by the treaty, the adoption of an overly rigid strategic concept of the bloc, allowing it to act without the sanctions of the Security Council UN, leads to an imbalance in world affairs, chaos and destruction of the existing world order, to the resumption and development of a coalition confrontation that is dangerous in modern conditions, and gives rise to relapses of a bygone bloc strategy. At present, one can see the demonic influence on the international situation of the United States and NATO, claiming to be the sole arbiters of the destinies of Europe and other continents. The only way out of this dangerous situation, in our opinion, is to shift the focus, change the implementation of the world order based on the so-called Atlanticized system of collective security, turn NATO into a more political organization, strengthen the UN and the OSCE as a stabilizing factor in the settlement of various conflicts.

But there are still many obstacles along the way. The time must not have come for the integration of all countries into common international systems. Military-force factors prevail, and neither the economy nor politics are yet able to push them to the periphery.

Calculations on the isolation of Russia in world affairs, the preservation and even deepening of the dividing line along the West-East azimuth are completely untenable and even pernicious also because international terrorism is currently intensifying its activities, creating dangerous zones for many countries and peoples. International terrorism, according to some Western politicians and diplomats, is one of the greatest dangers to the world and international stability. To counteract the malicious actions of terrorists, collective efforts are needed not only from the countries subjected to aggression, but also from the entire world community.

Questions of the genesis and classification of military-political alliances, of course, require further clarification in accordance with changes in the state of international relations and the military-political situation. The issues under consideration are also of certain importance in the development of military theory, and above all in the development of general problems of military science. It is precisely when conducting military scientific research at the highest level that it is important to determine possible allied military realities, predict their evolution and likely configuration, take into account the coalition aspect in solving the tasks of strengthening the country's defense capability, bearing in mind that building up Russia's military power and improving its Armed Forces constitute a necessary condition for the growth of the authority of the country, its entry into the European home.

∗ Variation- modification of minor elements, particulars of something while maintaining what is the basis.

Vasilkova V.V. Order and Chaos in Development social systems. Synergetics and the theory of social self-organization. SPb., 1999. S. 211.

There. S. 205.

Policy. 1994. No. 1. C.S4.

Nuclear Weapons and NATO. Analytical Survey of Literature. Washington, 1970. P. 450.

Liska G. Nation in Alliance. The Limits of Independence // The John Hopkins Press. Baltimore, 1962; Osgood R.E. Alliances and American Foreign Police//The John Hopkins Press, Baltimore; London, 1971. P. 2-3; Cottrell A.J., Dougherty J.E. The Politics of the Alliance // Fr.A.Praeger Publisher. New York; London, 1964. P. 13-14.

Revue de Defense Nationale. 1967. Juillet. P. 1254-1255.

Alliance in International Politics. Boston (Mass), 1970. P. 95.

military thought. 1999. No. 2. S. 64.

Huntington S. A clash of civilizations? // Polis. 1994. No. 1. S. 33.

To comment, you must register on the site.