General characteristics of the Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations. Main features of the Yalta-Potsdam order (Yalta-Potsdam system). Need help studying a topic?

New and recent history No. 2, 2002

© V.K. Volkov

"NEW WORLD ORDER"
AND THE BALKAN CRISIS OF THE 90S

VC. Volkov
Volkov Vladimir Konstantinovich - corresponding member RAS, director of the Institute of Slavic Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

Contemporaries and participants in the events are not always fully aware of the scale of the events being experienced and their socio-political consequences. The last decade, which brought such profound changes to the life of the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, was no exception. Internal changes in them during 1989-1991, which resulted in the collapse of communist regimes, the collapse of the multinational states - the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, as well as the “divorce process” of the Czechs and Slovaks that soon followed, marked the beginning of a new era not only in their historical development, but also in the development of the whole world. These epochal shifts and the widespread democratic euphoria associated with them to a certain extent veiled the second process, which took place simultaneously with the first, namely, a profound shift in the balance of power on the world stage and the formation of a new concrete historical system of international relations. This process had global consequences, especially taking into account Eurocentrism, which has not yet been completely overcome in the world.

DISCOVERY OF THE YALTA-POTSDAM SYSTEM OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Over the past four centuries, a change in the system of international relations has been observed in Europe for the fifth time.

The first concrete historical system of international relations that emerged from medieval fragmentation and testified to the onset of a qualitatively new stage in the development of the continent was the system established by the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which summed up the Thirty Years' War - essentially the first pan-European war. Then the foundations arose international law, reflected in the famous book of Hugo Grotius “On the Law of War and Peace” (1625). This system, characterized by constantly changing coalitions that were at war with each other - which maintained the system of international balance of power - lasted almost a century and a half, until the French Revolution of the 18th century. and Napoleonic wars.

The Congress of Vienna in 1815, which ended the era of the Napoleonic wars, marked the birth of the second concrete historical system of international relations. The tone in it was set by the five great powers of that time, the so-called “pentalgia” - Great Britain, France, Russia, the Austrian and Ottoman empires. Later, united Germany and Italy joined this “club”. Within the framework of the established “European concert”, for a long time the function of “arbiter of balance” was played by Great Britain, the only world power at that time. International law received further development. Having existed for almost 100 years, the system led to the formation of two opposing alliances - the Entente and the Triple Alliance - and ended in their conflict, which resulted in a world war.

The Versailles system, established in 1919, became the shortest system known to us. Its brevity - only 20 years - has given rise to some observers speculating on the topic: was it in fact a 20-year truce between two world wars, which together could be called a new edition of the Thirty Years' War? There are arguments in favor of such thoughts. However, the way it functions, going beyond the European framework - after the USA and Japan joined it, it would be more accurate to call it the Versailles-Washington system - new norms of international law, the emergence of a world universal organization - the League of Nations (even if the first experience was unsuccessful) - everything this testified to her originality. A new feature was the split of the world into two opposing socio-political systems - capitalism and socialism - after the victory of the October Revolution in Russia and the formation of the Soviet Union. Another form of division of the world was the emergence of authoritarian regimes in a number of countries in Europe and Asia with their aggressive foreign policy aspirations. At the same time, thrown out of hiding places after the defeat Hitler's Germany, fascist Italy and their allies, the secret archives that became the property of historians have made this system the most studied of all. Her research became a kind of laboratory, which made it possible to create a theory of international relations based on vast empirical material. The latter made it possible to take a fresh look at this specific sphere of human life. In this respect, the emergence of such a theory can be compared with the emergence of algebra along with old arithmetic.

The new concrete historical system of international relations that emerged after the Second World War was called the Yalta-Potsdam system. Characteristic feature This system, which was born as a result of the collapse of the anti-Hitler coalition, began to split the world into two socio-political camps and, accordingly, into two military-political blocs - NATO and the Warsaw Pact Organization. Their confrontation led to an unprecedented arms race, the creation of nuclear missiles and other types of weapons mass destruction, and for the first time in the history of mankind, the threat of universal destruction loomed over it. At the same time, this race gave an unprecedented acceleration to scientific and technological progress, resulting in a scientific and technological revolution (STR), which left its mark on the further development of mankind. Huge changes have occurred in the socio-political structure of the world. The colonial system collapsed, and many new independent states arose from its ruins. To a large extent, such transformations occurred as a result of what we once called “the competition of two socio-political systems.” They allowed the “third world” countries to emerge and led to the formation of the Non-Aligned Movement, which gave a powerful impetus to the democratization of the system of international relations.

This system lasted a little over four decades and left a deep mark on the destinies of all mankind. For the first time in history, it ceased to exist not as a result of a global conflict (“hot war”), but as a result of the collapse of one of the poles that determined its development and functioning. This happened in 1989-1991. The “peaceful nature” of the collapse of the old system led to the slow, drawn-out formation of a new system of international relations, soon called "new world order". It became the fifth system known in the history of Europe and the world. The new system soon showed its own characteristics, different from those of the previous era. To clarify them and better understanding it is necessary to dwell at least briefly on the main reasons that led to its formation, namely, on the circumstances that contributed to the collapse of the “world socialist system” and the Soviet Union.

The relations between the two military-political blocs that emerged after the Second World War are best characterized by the term “cold war.” Over the course of decades, these relations experienced great fluctuations and were of a pendulum nature. After the war, the international authority of the Soviet Union was extremely high. The blood shed by the Soviet people in their heroic struggle against the fascist aggressors, for some time covered the stains of shame on the Stalinist regime ("Winners are not judged!"). The strict centralization of the planned economy made it possible to quickly restore the national economy destroyed by the war and achieve significant success in the further development of industry, especially in industries related to the production of weapons. A similar situation was observed in other people's democratic (socialist) countries. Economic successes in the first 10-15 post-war years veiled the rigidity of the communist regime, its inability to solve many major problems (an example is the failed policy in agriculture), and the growing political tension in society, especially in the Eastern European socialist countries. The accumulated discontent here led to the first systemic crisis of the “socialist camp” in 1956, which resulted in a change in political leadership in Poland and a popular uprising in Hungary. At the same time, the launch of the first artificial Earth satellite in October 1957, and the first man into space flight in April 1961, demonstrated the scientific capabilities and industrial potential of the USSR. At the turn of the 50-60s, a military-strategic balance was established in the world, which was maintained subsequently.

In international relations of that time, periods of detente (“thaw”) alternated with crisis situations. The most serious was the Cuban Missile Crisis at the end of 1962, caused by the deployment of Soviet missiles in Cuba. During its course, humanity for the first time actually found itself on the brink of a nuclear war between two superpowers. A retrospective look at the events of the Cold War shows that the Cuban Missile Crisis was a turning point in its history. Although the arms race continued, the basic means of struggle changed. They became economic methods, tough information and psychological warfare and various subversive campaigns. The initiators of new methods were the Western powers, primarily the United States, which were determined to use their significant economic superiority. Moreover, since the early 60s Soviet Union and others socialist countries began to experience increasing economic difficulties.

The scientific and technological revolution that unfolded from the beginning of the 60s immediately revealed weak spots Soviet-type planned economy with its command-administrative methods of managing both the national economy and society. The revolution in computer technology and radio electronics clearly showed the lag of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries in development and especially in the introduction of new technologies. At the same time, a general lag in socialist countries in terms of the pace of development and living standards of the population began to be observed. This was clearly evident when comparing these indicators with neighboring countries that were previously closely associated with them, in particular, Austria with Czechoslovakia and Hungary, Greece with Bulgaria, the GDR with Germany, etc. It was obvious that these countries needed serious reforms. However, attempts to carry them out, especially in Poland, the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia, showed that they were associated with changes in the political organization of society. In Czechoslovakia this led to the first attempt at perestroika public life which resulted in the “Prague Spring” of 1968. The entire “socialist community” found itself in a state of political crisis, which demonstrated the unpreparedness of the leadership of socialist countries for political and economic changes and even the determination to resist them. The result was the armed intervention of five socialist states in Czechoslovakia in August 1968, which discredited the very idea of ​​political and economic reforms in a socialist society. An era of “stagnation” began, stretching for two decades.

The Czechoslovak events were not the first manifestation of crisis in the “socialist community.” Crises have happened before - the severance of relations with Yugoslavia by the Soviet Union and other socialist countries in 1948-1949, the June 1953 events in Berlin, the 1956 events in Poland and Hungary - but none of them had such an impact on the future development of all socialist countries. If we add to this the severance of relations with China in the mid-60s, the picture will be complete. The entire “socialist community” entered a period of crisis development, which at first proceeded in a hidden form. It came out during the political crisis in Poland in 1980-1981, which ended with the introduction of martial law in the country in peacetime.

The international balance of power in the 60-70s of the 20th century, according to Western political scientists, was characterized by the existence of two geopolitical triangles: USA - Europe (European NATO countries) - USSR (more precisely, the “socialist commonwealth” in Europe) and USA - Japan - THE USSR. Both triangles closed on the USA and were directed against the USSR. If in the military-strategic plan the USSR could, at the cost of considerable effort, maintain parity, mainly due to the nuclear missile complex, then in the economic field the Western powers had an undoubted and enormous advantage. And they were ready to use this advantage for political purposes.

Without stopping the arms race, the Western powers, while pursuing a new course, moved away from forceful confrontation. The result was a noticeable weakening of international tension, especially since the early 70s. It also brought benefits to the socialist countries, which in the early 70s concluded a number of agreements with Germany that were important for the legal consolidation of the post-war structure of Europe and the recognition of existing borders. The culmination of the period of détente was the signing of the Final Act of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe on August 1, 1975 in Helsinki. He not only gave further impetus to the development of international law, but also largely codified the achievements in this area that had existed by that time. These were universal human achievements and values. However, some of the provisions included in it, primarily on “human rights,” almost immediately began to be used by Western propaganda in the information and psychological war against socialist countries, which has never been interrupted.

All the contradictions that existed in the relations between the two socio-political blocs, as well as in the socio-political structure of the USSR and other socialist countries, came to the surface with the beginning Afghan war in December 1979, Western powers, primarily the United States, launched a political and propaganda campaign against the “evil empire,” as US President R. Reagan dubbed the USSR. A new outbreak of the Cold War followed, accompanied by attempts at an economic blockade. The latter showed the vulnerability of the Soviet economy with its one-sided focus on the development of military sectors and heavy industry, the country's food dependence on foreign markets and the instability of its foreign trade solvency, tied to world oil prices - "petrodollars". The lag of Soviet industry in the latest technologies soon manifested itself during the military operations in Afghanistan. The war itself placed a heavy burden on the country's economy.

Under such conditions, the idea of ​​the inevitability of large-scale reforms, primarily in the economy, gradually began to mature in the Soviet leadership. However, the implementation of these plans was hampered by such subjective factors as the rapid aging of members of the Soviet leadership and the leapfrog with the change of leaders. After the death of L.I. Brezhnev in November 1982, who, with his counterintuitive policy, greatly slowed down even the initial consideration of pressing problems, who replaced him Yu.V. Andropov waged a firm fight against corruption, and also began to take a cautious approach to developing plans for economic reform. His actions were inconsistent and contradictory. But during the 15 months of his stay in power, half of which he was bedridden by a fatal illness, he gave a fundamental impetus to the beginning of reflection and recognition of the need for reform in the country. He was succeeded by K.U. Chernenko, who was given only 13 months by fate - from February 10, 1984 to March 10, 1985 - did not show himself in any way. With his departure from the political scene, not only the “five-year period of magnificent funeral” ended, but also the era of Brezhnev and post-Brezhnev “stagnation”.

With the name of the new one Secretary General Central Committee of the CPSU M.S. Gorbachev, elected to this post on March 11, 1985, was bound by public opinion to carry out the significant changes that were overdue in society. And the first steps instilled hope for the transformations needed in all areas of life. The subsequent years, 1985-1991, were subsequently called “perestroika”. However, a retrospective glance shows that in the heads of the people who were called “foremen of perestroika”, in fact there was no well-thought-out plan of action, there was no clear picture of what to strive for. All their actions were spontaneous, improvised, one slogan was replaced by another without proper justification.

Following the slogan of “accelerating the socio-economic development of the country” - without a deep analysis of the reasons for its slowdown in the previous period - came the slogan of “glasnost”, interpreted as a way to improve the work of all levels of the state apparatus and economic management. The absence of real changes was observed against the backdrop of rising prices, deteriorating supply of the population and falling living standards. In an atmosphere of heightened public expectations and general excitement generated by journalism about the “blank spots” of Soviet history, of which there were a sufficient number, this led to the emergence of signs of crisis phenomena in the country. They grew rapidly in the economy, in the political sphere, in ideology, and in the field of interethnic relations.

The latter, especially after the outbreak of the Karabakh conflict in February 1988, which led to the emergence of major contradictions between the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan, as well as both of these republics with the federal center, quickly came into focus political life countries. They resulted in numerous national movements, as well as openly separatist tendencies in the Baltic republics. The Soviet leadership, led by Gorbachev, completely did not understand the meaning of the events taking place. Finding itself a victim of its own propaganda about the “resolution of the national question in the USSR,” it was unable to discern that behind these events there was a special political layer created by the Soviet government over the long years of its domination in all the union and autonomous republics - the ethnonomenklatura. It turned out that the Soviet leadership had no real idea even of the social anatomy of the society it led. The result was tragic for him: the core of the Soviet political structure- the party, the party apparatus - began to gradually stratify, disintegrate and become isolated along national lines. This was a terrible omen of the possible collapse of the country. Its first signs appeared in the summer of 1988, but were not assessed or taken into account.

The new leadership of the USSR tried to compensate for internal political miscalculations and failures with active foreign policy activities. But here it showed its amateurish qualities in an even more vivid form. Based on the correct statement of the world’s fatigue from the Cold War and the universal conviction of the need to reduce nuclear weapons, Gorbachev came up with the concept of “new thinking,” which preached the primacy of universal human values, and the ideas of a “common European home.” Neither Gorbachev, nor E.A., who became Minister of Foreign Affairs under him. Shevardnadze had no diplomatic experience. Their activities in the foreign policy field in specific issues of disarmament and solving bilateral problems, as a rule, resulted in unilateral concessions and were almost not compensated by reciprocal steps of the other contracting party. Gorbachev's idealistic behavior was skillfully used by pragmatic Western figures, who did not skimp on the highest praise for him. Thus, the very principle of equality of the contracting parties was subject to deformation, the process of detente, during which Western partners received one-sided and unjustified advantages. Reveling in their “successes” and being in a state of euphoria, the Soviet leaders at the same time mercilessly exploited the widespread hopes among the Soviet people for the preservation of peace. The downside of this policy was the suppression of critical voices that spoke out against the inferiority of the course being pursued.

The policy of the Gorbachev leadership in relation to other European socialist countries was especially two-faced. Relations with them have long been in need of revision, in freeing them from paternalistic tutelage on the part of the USSR, as well as in streamlining economic relations with them and between them. As is known, within the framework of the “socialist division of labor” organized by the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA), European socialist countries received raw materials from the USSR at prices significantly lower than world prices and used its market to sell their products that were not in demand elsewhere. “Perestroika” in the Soviet Union was greeted by the public of European socialist countries not only with interest, but also with the hope that their own leaders would follow the example of their “big brother.” However, this did not happen. Documents and other evidence did not convey a single fact that would indicate an attempt by the Soviet leadership to coordinate or discuss its policy with its allies. It is not surprising that the leaders of these countries felt abandoned, and the most conservative part of them considered this behavior of the Soviet leadership as a betrayal of their interests.

It is characteristic that already in 1987, part of the Soviet leadership had the idea of ​​withdrawing Soviet troops from the GDR, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. She grew up in a narrow circle. On November 12, 1988, it was considered by the USSR Defense Council, and on its instructions, the Ministry of Defense developed corresponding plans by the end of December of the same year. At present, historians do not have any documentation or evidence that such ideas were considered or discussed by Soviet leaders with any of the leaders of the eastern European countries or in any forum within the Warsaw Pact Organization (WTO). The very fact of discussing such problems without representatives of the countries concerned speaks volumes. The dependence of their regimes on Soviet support is well known. The lack of consultations with them is an indicator of the readiness of Gorbachev and his inner circle to sacrifice the interests of their allies and actually go to the liquidation of the Department of Internal Affairs without any agreement with the Western powers on counter and similar steps on the part of NATO. What caused such readiness and haste? Considering that all this took place at least a year before the “velvet revolutions” in these countries, it is difficult to give up the thought of the deep interconnection of these events. Even a simple leak of information about such thinking in the Kremlin could have far-reaching consequences.

The spring of 1989 turned out to be fateful.

On April 6, the so-called “round table”, but in reality - political negotiations between the ruling party, the government, the opposition Solidarity, and a number of other parties and public organizations, completed its work that lasted two months. The agreement reached provided for the ruling party's renunciation of its monopoly on power, political pluralism, major political changes and the holding of free elections. For the first time in the practice of socialist countries, the ruling party renounced power, which was of fundamental importance.

On May 25, the First Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR, elected on an alternative basis, opened in Moscow. It was the first time that representatives of the opposition and the “aggressively obedient” party majority clashed publicly. The days of his work shocked the entire Soviet public. People's moods changed before our eyes. The CPSU suffered a serious moral defeat. Both of these events, in turn, had a huge impact on other European socialist countries, giving rise to a chain reaction of similar phenomena in them. The latter resulted in revolutionary changes.

The "Velvet Revolutions" of 1989 were preceded by radical reforms of the political system in Poland and Hungary, agreements on which were reached during negotiations with the opposition - in April and August of this year, respectively. In all Eastern European socialist countries, a large protest potential had accumulated, which was now fueled by news of developments in the USSR, Poland and Hungary. The first revolutionary breakthrough occurred in the GDR, where social problems were intertwined with national ones ( "we are one people"). The ruling circles of West Germany had a great influence on the development of processes in this country. The flow of refugees from the GDR was accompanied by mass demonstrations that began in early November in Berlin. On November 9, 1989, the decision of the renewed government of the GDR to open the border with Germany and West Berlin followed. The fall of the Berlin Wall, a symbol of the Cold War in the center of Europe, had more than just symbolic significance. Subsequent events led to the steady dismantling of the socialist regime in the GDR. Further events developed according to the “domino principle”. "Velvet revolutions" followed in Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia, and then in Romania, where, unlike other countries, there was bloodshed. Socialist regimes thus fell in all European socialist countries. Socialist ideas in their orthodox version suffered defeat along with them.

The foreign policy consequences of the "velvet revolutions" were enormous. It became clear that the Warsaw Pact had ceased to exist, and the dissolution of the Department of Internal Affairs was in fact a foregone conclusion. Formally, the Department of Internal Affairs dissolved itself at the beginning of 1991. The “Socialist Commonwealth” collapsed. This was an event of epochal significance. The then Soviet propaganda and the world media tried to gloss over and obscure its consequences, each for their own reasons. The question of the relationship between internal and external factors in the development of events still remains open, in particular, the actual role and degree of involvement in them of both the Soviet Union and Western powers, primarily the United States. The first visible consequence was a sharp shift in the balance of power in favor of the Western powers. The documents did not convey the concerns of the Gorbachev leadership due to the fact that the military-strategic parity of the two blocs, achieved at the cost of many years of effort and enormous funds, was sharply violated. The agenda included the question of the fate of another bloc - NATO, and the need for its reorganization, but the matter did not go beyond discussions. As a result, the process of detente that was developing at that time began to resemble a game with one goal.

Indicative were the unprecedented and unreasonable concessions made by Gorbachev in the unification of the Federal Republic of Germany and the GDR, which shocked even West German politicians. Although the Soviet Union had significant moral, historical and legal rights in resolving the German question, they were not used. As a result, the unification of Germany took place in the form of the absorption of the GDR by the Federal Republic of Germany. The military-political status of the new united state and the form of Germany’s participation in NATO were not discussed, assurances about the non-proliferation of NATO to the east and the non-inclusion of any of the former Warsaw Pact member countries into this bloc were not enshrined in the contractual form, the interests of the USSR related to the withdrawal were not taken into account of his troops from German territory and the very timing of this withdrawal; no material compensation was received for the abandoned structures and property, for the concessions made. The consequences of this were felt later.

While the Warsaw Pact was already living out its last days, NATO leaders did not even think about reforming the military organization and turning into a political organization. In order to somehow soften the impression of a sharp imbalance of power, which was especially striking after the unification of Germany, proclaimed on October 3, 1990, the leaders of the Western powers made broadcast statements about the end of the period of confrontation and did not skimp on conciliatory gestures. Thus, on November 17, 1990, in Vienna, representatives of the member states of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE), an organization created by the decision of the 1975 Helsinki Agreement, signed a document on measures to strengthen confidence and security in Europe.

Two days later, on November 19, in Paris, at a new meeting of representatives of the CSCE countries, the “Paris Charter for a New Europe” was adopted, which stated the inadmissibility of the use of force or the threat of force against any CSCE participating state. At the same time, the Paris Treaty was signed between NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries (although the latter had by that time turned into a fiction) on parity in conventional weapons based on reasonable sufficiency. The Charter of Paris was widely interpreted as the funeral of the Cold War, but the basis of equality of the parties, which had been violated by that time, had already begun to produce the first distortions in the structure of international relations.

The collapse of socialist regimes at the end of 1989 in Eastern European countries and changes in the international arena had an impact big influence on the internal situation of the Soviet Union. Ethnocratic clans in the Union republics sharply became more active, they began to decisively seek expansion of their rights, greater independence from the federal center, and embarked on the path of arbitrariness, and in some cases, outright separatism, which was typical of the Baltic republics. Special meaning had the formation of a political center in the Russian Federation, where it had not existed before that time. After Yeltsin was elected Chairman of the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation, it was he who led the opposition to the federal center and Gorbachev. After the declaration of sovereignty by the Russian Federation on June 12, 1990, a “parade of sovereignties” of other republics followed in the country. Gradually, a strange alliance of Russian democrats of various shades began to take shape, mainly from Moscow, Leningrad and other large cities, oriented towards Yeltsin and the Supreme Council of the Russian Federation, with ethnocratic clans in the union republics. It was he who ultimately proved fatal to the fate of the Soviet Union.

There is literature and evidence from memoirists about the processes of the collapse of the Soviet Union, recreating in detail the entire history of their genesis, the atmosphere of behind-the-scenes intrigues and political combinations associated with Gorbachev’s attempts by signing a new union treaty to retain at least part of the power that was slipping from his hands, the “conspiracy of the democrats” and “a conspiracy of presidents”, the ripening of the idea of ​​​​introducing a state of emergency in the country and the mediocre attempt at a putsch on August 19-21, 1991, which led to the actual collapse of the Soviet Union. The Belovezhskaya Agreements of December 8, 1991, which terminated the formal existence of the USSR and also proclaimed the formation of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), were not ignored.

From all this variety of events and processes, for the purposes of this study, it seems significant to draw a conclusion: the Soviet Union collapsed for internal political reasons, although with the most attentive and interested attitude to these processes and their support from the outside.

Was the collapse of the USSR inevitable? How is this often stated in propaganda literature? Was there an alternative to dismembering him?

There is not a speculative, but a concrete historical answer to this question, contained in the example of “perestroika” in China. Faced with similar problems and starting from a much worse starting position, the Chinese leadership, led by Deng Xiaoping, first developed a thoughtful reform plan and only then began to consistently implement it. Although the Chinese “perestroika” began earlier and by the beginning of the Soviet one had already brought the first tangible results, its experience was not in demand in the Kremlin. Their own unplanned and ill-considered actions soon turned “perestroika” into “catastrophe.”

The collapse of a great power in 1991 became a turning point not only in the fate of the new “independent states” formed in its vastness, but also in the history of Europe and the whole world. How to characterize the changes that have taken place? Naturally, the Western powers and their propaganda apparatus welcomed the disappearance of their formidable enemy, whom they continued to distrust even after the end of the Cold War, which preceded its collapse.

But the West is not the whole world. There were also directly opposite opinions. At an international scientific conference held in Beijing in May 2000 on the topic “Causes of the collapse of the USSR and consequences for Europe,” Chinese social scientists regarded this event as the greatest catastrophe of the 20th century. with the most dire consequences for the whole world. Considering that the XX century. was saturated to the limit with fateful events and survived two world wars, then such an assessment makes you think about a lot.

And in Russia itself, the collapse of the Soviet Union was regarded by many, including those who welcomed the collapse of the communist regime, as a national catastrophe and the collapse of the centuries-old Russian state. These include, for example, A.I. Solzhenitsyn. In any case, there is no doubt that many future generations of people now living in the new state formations that have arisen on its territory will have to deal with the consequences of the collapse of the USSR.

The Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations is a system of international relations enshrined in treaties and agreements of the Yalta and Potsdam conferences.

(Yalta(Crimean) conference Allied powers (February 4 - 11, 1945) - the second meeting of the leaders of the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition - the USSR, the USA and Great Britain, during the Second World War, dedicated to the establishment of the post-war world order. The conference took place in the Livadia (White) Palace in Yalta, Crimea. Potsdam conference took place in Potsdam at the Cecilienhof Palace from July 17 to August 2, 1945 and was carried out with the aim of determining further steps to post-war structure Europe.)

For the first time, the issue of a post-war settlement was raised at the highest level during the Tehran Conference of 1943.

Bretton Woods system, Bretton Woods Agreement(English) Bretton Woods system) - an international system for organizing monetary relations and trade settlements, established as a result of the Bretton Woods Conference, held from July 1 to July 22, 1944. Replaced the financial system based on the “gold standard”. The conference marked the beginning of such organizations as the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the International currency board(IMF). The Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations had a number of features:

Bipolar order. The revealed dominance in the post-war world of the two most powerful powers (the USSR and the USA) quite soon developed into their obvious confrontation. Any gain of one of the opponents was automatically considered a corresponding loss of the other - " zero sum game".

1) Arms race.. the Yalta-Potsdam order developed in era of nuclear weapons, which, introducing additional conflict into world processes, simultaneously contributed to the emergence in the second half of the 1960s of a mechanism for preventing world nuclear war - the “confrontational stability” model.

In the Cold War, each side sought to attract allies and satellites to its side. The total confrontation between the USSR and the USA, East and West was fraught with acute international crises: in Guatemala in 1954, Czechoslovakia in 1968, the Suez crisis of 1956, the Berlin crisis of 1948–1949, the Korean War of 1950–1953, the Cuban missile crisis 1962

The two poles balanced each other. The United States was the first to possess nuclear weapons. In July 1945, they carried out the first successful test of a nuclear device, and on August 6 and 9 of the same year they dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The USSR became the owner of the atomic bomb in August - September 1949. Great Britain - 1952, France - 1960, and the People's Republic of China - 1964 also became members of the atomic club. At the same time, stability within the framework of the I-Potsdam system was unstable and fragile. It was based on the balance of fear and was achieved through conflicts, crises, local wars, and through a ruinous arms race.

3) Confrontational nature- systemic, complex confrontation in economic, political, military, ideological and other spheres.

4) The role of international organizations. In the post-war world it intensified interconnectedness of countries and regions.

The creation and existence of the universal United Nations (UN). The UN Charter, adopted at the San Francisco Conference on June 26, 1945, came into force on October 24 of the same year. 50 countries became founding members of the UN.

The beginning of the integration process in Europe in the 50s. The Monnet Plan, which was based on economic unification. According to his plan, it was necessary to start with the integration of the coal and metallurgical industries of France and Germany. Monet intended to adhere to the “tactics of small things”, and not to strive to create a federation or confederation. Subsequently, the plan was finalized by Schumann, he introduced it to foreign partners. The Schumann Plan envisioned transferring control of the German and French coal and steel industries to a supranational High Authority that would make binding decisions in the common interest. Negotiations on the Schuman Plan began on June 20, 1950. The signing of the treaty establishing the ECSC took place on April 18, 1951.

The process of forming the political map of the world was characterized by significant territorial changes on the political map of the world: in the place of the former Germany, two sovereign states were formed - the Federal Republic of Germany and the GDR, a group of socialist states appeared in Eastern Europe, Asia and even Latin America (Cuba). The war marked the beginning of the collapse of the colonial system.

Treaty of San Francisco between the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition and Japan was signed in San Francisco on September 8, 1951. The treaty officially ended World War II and established the procedure for paying reparations to the allies and compensation to countries affected by Japanese aggression. Representatives of the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and Poland who participated in the conference refused to sign it. The head of the Soviet delegation, A. A. Gromyko, emphasized that representatives of the PRC were not invited to the conference.

Paris Peace Conference 1946. Peace treaties with the allies of the Russian Federation. International peace conference, convened to consider peace treaties among the states of the anti-Hitler coalition, the victors of the Second World War, and the former allies of the Nazi Party. in Europe: Italy, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary and Finland. The conference took place from July 29 to October 15, 1946 in Paris. It was attended by the USSR, USA, UK, France, China, as well as 16 other states that took part in the war vs. bloc of fascist aggressors in Europe.

The remaining unagreed provisions of the peace treaties were settled at the New York session of the Council of Foreign Ministers (November 4 – December 12, 1946). The signing ceremony of the peace treaties took place in Paris on February 10, 1947.

Each of the signed peace treaties declared the end of the state of war with the corresponding state. Peace treaties granted the defeated states the right to maintain a certain amount of armed forces necessary for the defense of the country. The defeated countries pledged to pay reparations.

As a result, according to the peace treaty It. was deprived of “all rights and title to Italian territorial possessions in Africa,” transferred to the UN. It. transferred to Yugoslavia the Istrian peninsula, part of the Julian Region, the city of Fiume, and some islands. Previously owned by It. The Dodecanese islands in the Aegean Sea went to Greece. Minor changes were also made to the boundaries of It. from Fr. in favor of the latter.

The peace treaty with Romania secured the transfer of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina to the USSR. Transylvania, which was transferred to Hungary in 1940 by the fascist powers, was returned to Romania. At the same time, the transfer of Southern Dobruja to Bulgaria, also carried out during the war, was confirmed. Thus, Romania’s access to the Black Sea has noticeably narrowed.

Bulgaria had to return the territories it captured during the war: Macedonia to Yugoslavia, Thrace to Greece. At the same time, it retained Southern Dobruja and therefore turned out to be the only defeated state, whose territory received some increase compared to the pre-war one. Thus, Bulgaria was rewarded for being the only GRM satellite that did not declare war on the Soviet Union.

The greatest territorial losses were suffered by Hungary, which was supposed to return to the borders of 1937. Transylvania was returned to Romania, and Bačka, an area on the left bank of the Danube, went to it. South part Slovakia was returned to Czechoslovakia, and Transcarpathian Ukraine passed to the USSR. As a result, some ethnic Hungarians ended up on the territory of neighboring countries, such as Romania

As for Finland, it recognized the border with the USSR established in March 1940 after the “Winter War”; in addition, the Pechenga (Petsamo) region in the Far North passed to the USSR, which allowed the Soviet Union to have a common border with Norway.

The Soviet leadership defended the return to the borders of the USSR in June 1941, that is, the consolidation of the entry into the Soviet Union of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina, as well as changes in the borders with Finland after the "winter war" of 1939–1940. It even achieved some new territorial acquisitions: K-gsberg with the adjacent territory (now Kaliningrad), the Petsamo region on the northern section of the border with Finland, Transcarpathian Ukraine (under the agreement between the USSR and Czechoslovakia from 1945), Southern Sakhalin, Kuril Islands. The Western allies recognized the USSR's right to a "security zone" along its European borders - this meant the creation in neighboring countries of governments friendly to the Soviet Union, oriented in foreign policy towards Moscow. The USSR concluded treaties of alliance (or friendship) and post-war cooperation and mutual assistance with the UK, France, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Poland, China..

1. The formation of a bipolar system of international relations and the beginning of the Cold War.

The position of the great powers after the Second World War. As a result of the war, the balance of power between the great powers completely changed. Germany and Japan, as losing countries, lost the ability to independently pursue foreign policy and became objects of international relations. France and to a lesser extent Great Britain were weakened and lost their positions as leading powers.

In the post-war period, Europe lost its role as the center of world politics. The system of international relations itself has lost its pluralistic character and turned into a global bipolar system with the USA and the USSR at the poles. The USSR was in the aura of the main winner of Nazism. The Red Army occupied Central and Eastern Europe, part of China and Korea. However, the United States had a clear economic superiority over the USSR. In addition, after the end of the war, the United States had some military superiority, having a monopoly on nuclear weapons until 1949.

Soviet supply strategy national security. The roots of the American-Soviet post-war contradictions lay both in differences in ideologies and in different strategies for ensuring national security.

The Soviet leadership, based on the experience of the war, saw the main threat on the western borders of the country. Therefore, I. Stalin sought to strengthen the position of the USSR in Eastern Europe, turning it into a “security belt”. Under Soviet influence, regimes were established in Eastern European countries that copied the Soviet model and pursued foreign policies prescribed by Moscow.

Instruments of US military and economic dominance. The US leadership, having resources and possessing a nuclear monopoly at that time, relied on the development strategic aviation and the construction of military bases in strategically important regions.

The USA, unlike the USSR, relied not only on military, but also on economic methods to ensure its position in the world. Here, as support, they began to use global institutions of economic regulation, such as the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development established by the decision of the Bretton Woods conference in June 1944.

The USSR took part in the creation of the IMF and other economic institutions. However, then the Soviet leadership withdrew from participating in these structures, fearing to become economically dependent on the United States.

Growing American-Soviet contradictions. First post-war years In the states of Eastern Europe, with the support of Moscow, communist forces began to come to power. The Soviet leadership justified the communists' coming to power as a result of the choice of the peoples of these countries in accordance with the principles of the Atlantic Charter. In Western Europe, against the backdrop of post-war socio-economic difficulties, the influence of the communists also grew. Washington began to seriously fear the Sovietization of Western European countries.

Additional complications between the West and the USSR arose due to the civil war in Greece and the Soviet-Turkish diplomatic conflict over the regime of the straits. The Soviet Union also made territorial claims to Turkey, wanting to return territories in Transcaucasia lost during the First World War. The United States was ready to provide military and economic assistance to Greece and Turkey, since these countries were of strategic importance to them.

The US leadership has strengthened the opinion that the Soviet Union, with the help of international communist forces, is seeking to seize a leading position throughout the world and is ready to back up its expansionist intentions with military force.

The West's fears regarding the USSR were openly stated in a speech by W. Churchill, delivered in Fulton on March 5, 1946. W. Churchill gave the confrontation an ideological overtone, declaring “ iron curtain", which divided the free countries of the West and the totalitarian regimes in the East.

Truman Doctrine. On March 12, 1947, President G. Truman addressed Congress with a message outlining the foreign policy program of the American administration. The provisions of this program formed the basis of the “doctrine of containment” (Truman Doctrine). The doctrine envisaged the widespread provision of economic and military assistance to regimes that opposed the pro-Soviet communist forces. In particular, the United States provided financial assistance to Greece and Turkey.

In April 1947, US Presidential Advisor B. Baruch, characterizing American-Soviet relations, first used the expression “cold war.” The term was picked up by journalists and firmly entered the political lexicon.

"Marshall Plan". The countries of Western Europe, whose economic situation was undermined by the war, were forced to ask for financial assistance from the United States. In June 1947, US Secretary of State D. Marshall proposed a plan for large-scale economic assistance to European countries.

Formally, the USSR and Eastern European countries were invited to join the Marshall Plan. However, the Soviet leadership refused to discuss the issue, calling the project a trick designed to enslave Europe. Eastern European countries and Finland refused to participate in the program under pressure from the USSR.

As a result, 16 European countries that were not part of the Soviet control zone, including West Germany, took part in the Marshall Plan. The plan was implemented from 1948 to 1951. The participating countries received annual American allocations of 4-5 billion dollars according to the plan. Special American commissions were sent to them, which had broad rights to control the use of allocated funds and the economic course of states in general.

The provision of assistance under the Marshall Plan was subject to political conditions. At the request of the United States, all communists were removed from the governments of the recipient states by 1948.

The Marshall Plan turned out to be very profitable for the American economy, since the funds received by the Europeans were used primarily for the purchase of goods and equipment in the United States.

The result of the implementation of the Marshall Plan was the rapid economic revival of Western European countries. The price of this revival was that Western Europe was firmly entrenched in the orbit of American influence.

Brussels Pact. In addition to providing economic assistance, the United States strongly encouraged Western European integration plans in the security and economic spheres. On March 17, 1948, Belgium, Great Britain, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and France signed the “Treaty on joint activities in the economic, social and cultural spheres and in collective self-defense.”

The main focus of the treaty was on “collective self-defense.” The parties to the pact pledged to provide military support to each other if any of them became the target of an attack. The USSR and Germany were considered as possible aggressors.

The Brussels Pact paved the way for a transatlantic collective defense treaty.

The German Question and the Berlin Crisis of 1948 The German question remained the most pressing issue of the post-war settlement. After the war, the territory of Germany decreased due to the separated eastern regions. The remaining lands, including Berlin, were divided into four occupation zones.

The coordination of Allied policy in the occupied zones was carried out by the Control Council, which included representatives of the USA, USSR, Great Britain and France. However, this body was unable to cope with the task of managing the entire German economy. Economic ties between the western zones and the eastern zone did not develop. The Western allies accused the Soviet leadership of not providing food aid to the western regions of Germany.

The Western powers were increasingly inclined to a separate solution to the German question without Soviet participation. In June 1948, Britain, the United States and France agreed to unite their occupation zones for more efficient administration. Monetary reform began in the western states of Germany, which provoked a financial crisis in East Germany. In response, the USSR banned the movement of goods from West Germany to East Germany. At the same time, the western part of Berlin was blocked. The Western Allies organized an air bridge to deliver everything needed to West Berlin.

The confrontation threatened to result in military action. The parties managed to avoid a military conflict as a result of negotiations. In May 1949, an agreement was reached in New York, according to which all restrictions in the field of communications, transport and trade were abolished in Germany. However, Berlin remained a divided city with different currencies. Two German states arose in the West and East of Germany.

Education of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic. In September 1949, a new state was formed on the territory of the united occupation zone of the Western powers - the Federal Republic of Germany. The Bundestag of West Germany decided to extend the new constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany to the territory of the states that were part of Germany before 1937. All this was negatively perceived by the Soviet Union, which refused to recognize the new German state.

Taking advantage of the actions of Western countries to split Germany, the USSR did not hesitate to proclaim the formation of a separate German state on the territory of its occupation zone. In October 1949, the German Democratic Republic was formed. The GDR was recognized by the Soviet Union and its allies. In 1950, the GDR signed agreements with Poland and Czechoslovakia on the recognition of their post-war borders and the absence of territorial claims against them.

Soviet course of political and economic integration of Eastern European countries. The response to the Berlin crisis and the separate actions of the Western powers was the adoption of the Soviet draft Danube Convention at a conference in Belgrade in July-August 1948. The Convention established free trade navigation on the Danube for all states. Navigation on the Danube by warships of non-Danubian states was prohibited.

In 1947-49. The USSR signed cross treaties with Eastern European countries. In January 1949, under the auspices of the USSR, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance was created as an alternative to the Marshall Plan. This institution was supposed to contribute to the integration of the countries of the socialist camp and the reorientation of their trade from the West to the USSR. The Soviet Union set a course towards creating a closed economic and military-political bloc under its leadership.

Attempts by some Eastern European leaders to deviate from the Soviet model or pursue independent foreign policies were harshly suppressed, as happened in the case of Yugoslavia. The conflict between J. Stalin and the Yugoslav leader J. Tito over the project of a confederation of Eastern European countries proposed by the Yugoslav and Bulgarian leadership led in 1948 to a severance of diplomatic relations between the USSR and Yugoslavia, which were restored only after the death of J. Stalin.

Creation of NATO. On April 4, 1949, the United States, Canada and 10 European countries signed the North Atlantic Treaty. For the purpose of collective defense against a possible external enemy, which primarily meant the USSR, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was created, which became the world's largest military-political bloc. According to the terms of the treaty, in the event of an attack on one of the NATO countries, the other participating countries were required to provide armed assistance to it immediately. NATO countries also agreed to resolve disputes between them peacefully, avoid economic conflicts and develop economic cooperation.

On the basis of the treaty, the united NATO armed forces were created, which were headed by American general D. Eisenhower. The United States took on the lion's share of military construction costs in Western European countries, which made the North Atlantic Treaty very attractive to Western European states.

The creation of NATO was the culmination of the West's reaction to the intensifying confrontation with the USSR. NATO forces have become the main bastion of Western defense within the framework of the American “doctrine of containment.” Through this Euro-Atlantic security structure, Washington consolidated its military-political dominance in Western Europe.

Nuclear factor in bipolar confrontation. Important role The nuclear factor played a role in the Yalta-Potsdam system. On August 29, 1949, the USSR tested a nuclear bomb, breaking the American monopoly on nuclear weapons. Later, Great Britain (1952), France (1960) and China (1964) became members of the “atomic club”.

Nuclear weapons, being weapons of enormous destructive power, have introduced qualitatively new elements into international relations. A strategic arms race developed, becoming an integral element of the post-war international order. At the same time, nuclear weapons became an instrument of mutual “deterrence.” Neither of the two superpowers could risk a large-scale conflict before the threat of a retaliatory strike that could cause unacceptable damage.

The beginning of the collapse of the colonial system. The end of World War II strengthened the national liberation movement in colonial and dependent countries. The old colonial powers sought to resist decolonization. However, the USSR and the USA sought to destroy the colonial empires. At the same time, Moscow supported left-wing revolutionary groups of national liberation movements, and Washington supported right-wing reformist and preferably anti-communist groups.

In the national liberation movements of a number of countries in the Far East, the leading role belonged to leftist forces. During the struggle against the Japanese occupation, the communists strengthened their positions in China and Vietnam. After the war, communist forces began fighting against French colonialists in Vietnam and US-backed nationalists in China.

In 1949, the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) defeated the Kuomintang troops, expelling them to Taiwan. The People's Republic of China was proclaimed on mainland China. In Vietnam in the early 1950s, national liberation forces defeated French troops.

In July 1954, at a session of the Council of Foreign Ministers, a declaration was signed, which provided the opportunity for free development to Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia. Although Vietnam was split, the countries of Indochina gained independence. The Philippines gained independence in 1946, India in 1947, Burma and Ceylon in 1948, Egypt in 1952, Indonesia in 1954. However, this was only the beginning of the collapse of the colonial system.

The process of collapse of the colonial system became the subject of close attention from the USA and the USSR, which began to fight for influence on post-colonial states.

The Palestinian problem and the creation of the State of Israel. During World War II, Britain significantly expanded its influence in the Middle East region. In particular, the British Mandate for the administration of Palestine remained in style. Meanwhile, in accordance with the “Belfour Declaration” of 1917 on the creation of a Jewish national home, Jews emigrated to Palestine in the 1920s and 30s. After the Second World War, mass resettlement of Jews from European countries began to Palestine as victims of Nazism.

The British administration in Palestine came under pressure, on the one hand, from the Arabs, who demanded an end to Jewish immigration, and, on the other hand, from Jewish settlers, who began an armed struggle to create their own state. As a result, London decided to abdicate responsibility for the decision Palestinian issue. The problem was referred to the UN General Assembly, which in November 1947 adopted a resolution dividing the territory of Palestine into Arab, Jewish parts and a special zone under UN trusteeship. Arab countries did not recognize the resolution and insisted on the creation of an Arab state in Palestine. Meanwhile, Jewish armed groups began to systematically displace the Arab population from the Palestinian areas.

On May 14, 1948, Great Britain officially abandoned the Mandate for Palestine. The next day, the provisional Jewish government of Palestine proclaimed the state of Israel. The new state was recognized by the USSR and the USA. The Soviet Union promoted the creation of a Jewish state, hoping to use the large community of “Russian Jews” in Palestine to strengthen its influence in the Middle East. However, in 1949 I. Stalin radically changed his attitude towards the State of Israel. The departure of Jews from the USSR was stopped. Israel has reoriented itself towards the United States.

In response to Israel's declaration of independence, all neighboring Arab states began a war against it. However, the Arab armies were unable to achieve a military victory. In September 1949, a truce was concluded, under which the bulk of Palestine remained under Israeli control. In December 1949, Israel, in violation of a UN resolution, moved the capital to Jerusalem, which was divided into Arab and Jewish parts and was considered by both communities to be the holy city.

The confrontation in Palestine continued. Arab countries refused to recognize Israel's right to exist. The country found itself in a hostile environment. The Arab-Israeli confrontation, being a local conflict, involved the leading world powers in the confrontation and had significant influence on international relations of the second half of the 20th century.

2. Bipolar confrontation in conditions of brinkmanship (1950s - early 1960s).

The American concept of “throwing back communism” and the doctrine of “massive retaliation”. In 1952, Republican D. Eisenhower won the US presidential election. New administration continued its confrontational course towards the USSR.

The Republican foreign policy was based on the ideas formulated by US Secretary of State D. Dulles. In his view, the previous administration's foreign policy strategy was too passive and defensive. It was necessary to launch a broad offensive against the USSR’s positions in the world, using as a tool the threat of large-scale use of nuclear weapons, since at that time the United States had a significant superiority in numbers nuclear bombs and means of their delivery (strategic aviation). In addition, the territory of the United States was poorly accessible to the Soviets. nuclear strikes.

Based on the concept of “rolling back communism,” the United States adopted the military doctrine of “massive retaliation.” It was expected that in response to even a limited attack by the USSR on the USA, strike the entire nuclear power. As a result, any local conflict involving the United States could escalate into a large-scale war using nuclear weapons. The doctrine legalized the “preventive strike,” since even a small conflict with the USSR presupposed the use of all US forces and means against it in order to prevent new attacks on its part.

Formation of opposing military-political blocs. The United States continued its course towards creating military-political blocs directed against the USSR and its allies. In September 1951, the USA, Australia and New Zealand signed the "Pacific Security Pact" to create the military alliance ANZUS. In September 1954, the USA, Great Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Thailand and the Philippines concluded the Collective Defense Treaty in Manila South-East Asia. In general, these treaties were anti-Japanese in nature, but the United States tried to give them an anti-communist orientation. In February 1955, at the initiative of the United States, the Baghdad Pact was signed. This military-political alliance in the Middle East was joined by Great Britain, Pakistan, Turkey, Iran and Iraq.

In Europe, the United States set a course for the remilitarization of West Germany, considering Germany as a European outpost in the military-political confrontation with the USSR. In October 1954, the United States and its NATO allies signed Paris Agreements, according to which the occupation regime in Germany was abolished. The Paris Protocols authorized the creation of a West German army with its own general staff. Germany has committed itself to never resort to force to change its borders and not to acquire weapons of mass destruction. West Germany became a member of the North Atlantic Alliance and entered the Western European Union, formed on the basis of the amended and amended Brussels Pact. The inclusion of Germany in Western defense structures made it possible, on the one hand, to balance the Soviet military presence in Europe, and on the other hand, to contain the potential revanchist aspirations of Germany itself within the framework of the concept of “dual containment.”

Moscow's response to American politics The creation of military-political blocs along the perimeter of the socialist camp was the formation in May 1955 of the military-political union of European socialist states - the Warsaw Pact Organization. The Warsaw Pact was signed by the USSR, Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, East Germany, Poland and Czechoslovakia. The parties to the treaty were obliged in international relations to refrain from the use of force and the threat of use of force, as well as to provide assistance to each other in the event of an armed attack. United armed forces of the participating countries were created. The creation of the Department of Internal Affairs provided the legal basis for maintaining the Soviet military presence in Eastern Europe.

San Francisco Conference 1951 Bloc confrontation was most clearly manifested not only in Europe, but also in East Asia. The “loss” of China forced the United States to look for a replacement for it in the security system in the Pacific region. The United States decided to rely on Japan, which would be economically strong but militarily controlled and would become a key link in the defense perimeter around continental Asia.

In September 1951, a conference was held in San Francisco with the participation of 52 powers, the agenda of which was the signing of a peace treaty with Japan. The PRC and Taiwan were not invited to the conference, since the participating countries maintained relations with different Chinese regimes. The United States previously agreed with the majority of interested states in the region on the text of the peace treaty with Japan, thereby excluding the possibility of significant changes to the treaty by the Soviet Union. In such a situation, the USSR refused to sign a peace treaty.

The San Francisco Peace Treaty ended the state of war between Japan and the countries that signed it, and also recorded the restoration of the country's sovereignty and the end of the occupation regime. Japan renounced rights to its former imperial continental and island possessions, including South Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands. However, since the agreement did not indicate in whose favor the Japanese side abandoned these territories, the rights of the USSR to the Japanese territories that actually passed to it were not confirmed.

The peace treaty with Japan removed formal obstacles to a US-Japan security treaty, which was signed the next day. According to the treaty, Japan, which was constitutionally unable to create large armed forces, delegated to the United States the rights to defend its territory. The United States received the right to station its armed forces in Japan in order to ensure security in the Far East. Since that time, Tokyo has unconditionally followed Washington in foreign policy. The alliance with Japan became the basis of the American presence in East Asia.

Soviet-Chinese rapprochement. The USSR sought to strengthen its influence not only in Eastern Europe, but also in East Asia. Back in the spring of 1946, Soviet troops were withdrawn from China, but a significant part of the Soviet and captured Japanese weapons was transferred to the PLA. Thanks to Soviet support, the Communists, led by Mao Zedong, won the civil war against the forces of Chiang Kai-shek, who was supported by Washington.

The United States did not recognize the new regime in Beijing, so Mao Zedong was forced to focus on the USSR. The Soviet leadership sent material assistance and advisers to China to help create a system of public administration and reform the economy according to the Soviet model.

In February 1950, the USSR and China signed an agreement on mutual assistance in the event of aggression by a third party and on economic cooperation. By agreement, the USSR transferred to China railways and naval bases on Chinese territory.

Korean War. Sino-Soviet solidarity was demonstrated during the Korean War. As a result of World War II, the Korean Peninsula was divided along the demarcation line (38th parallel) into two zones - under Soviet and American control. Governments were formed in both zones, each of which considered only itself legitimate and extended its jurisdiction over the entire peninsula.

In June 1950, the leadership of pro-Soviet North Korea decided to forcefully unite all of Korea under its rule. The Soviet leadership, fearing US intervention in the conflict and the outbreak of a nuclear war, opposed this initiative, but this did not stop North Korean leader Kim Il Sung. On June 25, 1950, the North Korean army invaded South Korea, capturing most of its territory by August.

On the day of the North Korean invasion, the UN Security Council was convened, at which, thanks to the fact that the Soviet representative boycotted the meeting, a resolution proposed by the United States was adopted, which condemned the aggression of North Korea and authorized the entry of troops into the war under the auspices of the UN. The United States and its allies sent troops to Korea, which by October 1950 defeated North Korean forces.

In response to American intervention, China, in agreement with the USSR, sent troops into North Korea. The USSR provided financial and military assistance to the North Korean regime by sending air force units to the Korean front. As a result, the UN troops were thrown back to the 38th parallel, where the front stabilized and a stalemate arose.

The commander of the UN forces, American General D. MacArthur, insisted to the US leadership on launching a nuclear strike on China. However, President G. Truman, not wanting to spread the conflict beyond the Korean Peninsula and bearing in mind the possibility of a nuclear conflict with the USSR, did not support this idea and removed MacArthur from command.

After the death of I. Stalin in March 1953, the USSR advocated a cessation of hostilities. Left without the political support of the USSR, China and North Korea concluded a ceasefire agreement with the UN forces on July 27, 1953. Representatives of South Korea refused to sign the document, which was signed by the American General M. Clark on behalf of the UN forces. A demarcation zone was created around the 38th parallel, which was guarded by North Korean troops from the north, and US and South Korean forces from the south.

The Korean War was the first armed conflict of the Cold War era where two superpowers clashed without the use of nuclear weapons. The Korean War convinced Western leaders of communist military expansion. This led to the creation of new anti-Soviet blocs and active US support for anti-communist forces in the Third World.

Soviet concept of "peaceful coexistence". Coming to power in the USSR N.S. Khrushchev meant a new stage in Soviet foreign policy. N. Khrushchev and his supporters believed that in the nuclear era, peaceful coexistence of states with different systems is not only possible, but also necessary. The peaceful position of the Soviet leadership was due both to the awareness of the possible irreversible consequences of the Korean War and similar conflicts, and to the fact that the USSR at that moment was significantly inferior to the United States in nuclear potential.

A new concept of the USSR's foreign policy was presented at the 20th Congress of the CPSU in February 1956. N. Khrushchev's foreign policy program was based on the idea that there should be peaceful competition between the capitalist and socialist systems, which should not turn into military confrontation.

Foreign policy initiatives of N.S. Khrushchev. As part of the concept of “peaceful coexistence,” the USSR introduced a number of initiatives in the field of international security. In 1954, the Soviet leadership proposed discussing a draft Pan-European Treaty on Collective Security. In particular, the USSR proposed convening a world conference on global arms reduction.

On the German question, the Soviet Union proposed discussing the prospect of the reunification of Germany, which could become a neutral state following the example of Switzerland. The Western allies advocated the unification of Germany under the auspices of the Federal Republic of Germany and a referendum on the future status of the country. The parties failed to reach an agreement on the German issue. The formula “unification - plus neutralization” was implemented only in relation to Austria, which, after the withdrawal of Soviet troops in 1955, was recognized as a neutral country.

In general, Moscow's initiatives were received with distrust in the West. The United States and its allies were willing to exchange some military information, but none of the Soviet proposals were accepted on their merits. However, N. Khrushchev's initiatives became a unique challenge for Western diplomacy. Soviet foreign policy began to look more progressive and flexible than the policies of the Western powers.

Attempts by the USSR to normalize relations with Germany and Japan. As part of the peace offensive, the USSR attempted to normalize relations with West Germany. In 1955, the end of the state of war with Germany was announced. In September 1955, German Chancellor K. Adenauer visited Moscow, and diplomatic relations were established between the countries. The USSR pledged to repatriate all former German prisoners of war to Germany. However, the West German leadership refused to recognize the GDR and did not officially recognize the post-war German borders in the East, which gave reason to suspect it of revanchist sentiments. Moreover, in 1955, State Secretary of the German Foreign Ministry V. Hallstein formulated a doctrine according to which West Germany established and maintained diplomatic relations only with those states that did not have diplomatic relations with the GDR. The German authorities adhered to the “Halstein Doctrine” until the end of the 1960s. An exception was made only in relation to the USSR as a superpower, relations with which were of particular importance. Therefore, Soviet-West German relations continued to remain cool.

The USSR also attempted to normalize relations with Japan, hoping to undermine the US-Japan alliance. The United States provided active diplomatic opposition to normalization. Japan, at the instigation of the United States, began to challenge the USSR's right to own four islands Kuril ridge. The American administration threatened the Japanese side with an indefinite occupation of the southern islands of the Japanese archipelago in case of concessions in the territorial dispute.

In October 1956, the USSR and Japan signed a joint declaration to end the state of war and establish diplomatic relations. The USSR agreed to transfer two islands of the Kuril chain to Japan after the signing of a peace treaty. However, in 1960, a new security treaty was concluded between the United States and Japan, which consolidated the American military presence in the Japanese islands. This gave the USSR reasons to refuse promises of territorial concessions.

Attempts to limit the arms race. In the field of disarmament, the USSR proposed, first of all, to abandon the use of nuclear weapons. In August 1953, the Soviet Union announced that it had hydrogen weapons, but in December 1953 it called for the use of atomic energy for exclusively peaceful purposes. The Soviet leadership also advocated that states that possessed nuclear weapons undertake not to use them.

The USSR took concrete steps to reduce its armed forces. In 1955, the Soviet Union began unilaterally phased reduction of its army and abandoned a number of naval bases. In 1957, N. Khrushchev made a proposal to suspend nuclear tests, and a year later announced a unilateral moratorium on nuclear tests.

The initiatives of the Soviet leadership in the field of disarmament did not find understanding in the West at that time, primarily due to the tough position of the D. Eisenhower administration, which adhered to a forceful approach in international relations. The United States relied on nuclear weapons in the bipolar confrontation and was inclined to perceive Soviet proposals for nuclear disarmament as a ploy designed to level out American superiority in this area.

A new round of the arms race. Despite initiatives to reduce the armed forces, the military programs of the United States and its allies required the USSR to develop nuclear missile potential. Since the Soviet Union lagged far behind the United States in the development of strategic aviation, the emphasis was placed on missile technology. The successes of the space program made it possible to achieve even some superiority here.

In 1957, the USSR successfully tested an intercontinental ballistic missile. The entire US territory became vulnerable to Soviet nuclear weapons. A breakthrough in rocket technology allowed the USSR to significantly reduce the gap with the United States in the nuclear arms race, which received new impetus.

American concept of “flexible response”. In 1961, Democratic President D. Kennedy came to power in the United States. The new administration, forced to take into account the changed balance of forces and the fact that the entire American territory has become vulnerable to nuclear strikes, adopted a new foreign policy doctrine.

The adopted concept presupposed the choice of means of responding to security challenges for the United States and its allies, depending on the situation. The US leadership refused to rely on deterrence with its nuclear arsenal. In a hypothetical conflict with the USSR, a flexible, selective approach to the use of force was assumed in order to keep the situation from sliding into a large-scale nuclear conflict. By 1967, the concept of “flexible response” was adopted by all US NATO allies.

Second Berlin crisis. Kennedy's coming to power was perceived in Moscow as an opportunity to reconsider key issues of international security. In June 1961, a meeting between N. Khrushchev and D. Kennedy took place in Vienna, at which the German question was the focus. Since by this time the United States had begun to deploy nuclear weapons in Western Europe, the USSR sought to get the West to abandon the deployment of nuclear weapons in Germany. The USSR also sought recognition of the GDR by the United States and its allies. The Soviet side stated that it considered all of Berlin to be the territory of the GDR and saw no reason to retain it. western part special status. D. Kennedy was ready to compromise on most issues, but firmly advocated maintaining the status quo in West Berlin. As a result, no compromise was reached on the German issue.

Meanwhile, the situation around West Berlin was difficult, since a large number of defectors from the GDR. The Soviet leadership considered the continuation of this situation unacceptable. However, D. Kennedy directly stated that the United States would fight over West Berlin if the USSR tried to change the status of the city by force. In response, in August 1961, the GDR authorities completed construction concrete wall around West Berlin. Access to the western part of the city from East Germany was allowed only through checkpoints. In fact, the actions of the authorities of the USSR and the GDR consolidated the status quo in the Berlin issue. The problem of a divided Germany remained unresolved.

Caribbean (Cuban Missile) Crisis. The Berlin crisis turned out to be a prelude to a more dangerous clash between the superpowers. In 1959, F. Castro came to power in Cuba as a result of the revolution, and began to nationalize American companies. In response, the United States launched efforts to overthrow the new regime. F. Castro turned to the Soviet Union for help. In January 1962, the Soviet leadership decided to provide military assistance to Cuba, hoping to use the island as a springboard for deploying missiles near the United States, which was a response to the deployment of American nuclear missiles in Turkey near Soviet borders.

By October 1962, as a result of a secret operation, 42 nuclear missiles and a 40,000-strong contingent of Soviet troops were transported to Cuba. On October 14, American reconnaissance aircraft discovered rocket launchers. The United States perceived the deployment of Soviet missiles in Cuba as an invasion of the USSR into the zone of traditional American influence and a blatant threat to its security. Washington demanded that Moscow remove the missiles from Cuba and, in response to the USSR’s refusal to do so, organized a virtual naval blockade of the island. The USA and USSR put their troops on high alert. On October 27, 1962, an American reconnaissance aircraft was shot down over Cuba by Soviet air defenses. Military advisers convinced D. Kennedy to launch an invasion of Cuba, which would inevitably mean war with the USSR. The situation was on the brink of nuclear war.

From October 23 to October 28, 1962, difficult negotiations took place between the USA and the USSR, which ended in a compromise. The United States abandoned attempts to overthrow F. Castro and, in the secret part of the agreement, agreed to withdraw missiles from Turkey. The USSR removed the missiles from Cuba and henceforth refused to place them on the island.

Lessons from the Cuban missile crisis. The Cuban Missile Crisis was the culmination of the Cold War, marking the threshold of brinksmanship. The crisis had a sobering effect on politicians in the USSR and the USA, becoming the starting point for the start of a policy of détente. The parties realized the importance of constant consultations and negotiations in case of crisis situations. In June 1963, a telephone hotline was established between Moscow and Washington, which made it possible for the leaders of the two countries to communicate around the clock.

Under the influence of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the United States was forced to reconsider its military doctrine. In the spring of 1963, American military theorists developed the doctrine of “mutually assured destruction.” From the standpoint of doctrine, the nuclear potential of the USSR and the USA by that time was already so great that the side that suffered the first strike retained part of the potential sufficient to inflict unacceptable damage on the attacking side. Unacceptable damage meant the destruction of 25% of the population and 70% of the country's industrial potential. This made the idea of ​​a “preemptive strike” meaningless and pushed the parties towards restraint. The USSR also made changes to its military plans, tracking changes in American military and foreign policy documents.

N. Khrushchev's policy towards the countries of the socialist camp. Internal political changes in the USSR, which consisted of de-Stalinization and the “thaw” policy, affected the countries of the socialist camp. In them, under pressure from Moscow, a change in the former pro-Stalinist leadership began. In June 1953, diplomatic relations between the USSR and Yugoslavia were restored. The Soviet leadership recognized the special status of Yugoslavia and began to build relations with it as a country that had chosen a special option socialist development, within the framework of the concept of “peaceful coexistence”. In April 1956, Cominform, which was an instrument of Moscow's dictatorship in the international communist movement, was dissolved.

However, the processes of de-Stalinization caused mixed reactions in socialist countries. In the GDR, Poland and Hungary, the new Soviet course raised hopes for reforms up to and including regime change. In June 1953, mass unrest began in East Berlin and the cities of the GDR, which was suppressed with the help of Soviet troops. In June 1956, strikes and unrest swept across Poland. The conflict was resolved thanks to concessions from the Soviet leadership, which agreed to significantly expand Poland's independence and abandon the rigid model of Soviet socialism.

In Hungary, protest sentiments resulted in a full-scale uprising. Here, in October 1956, on the wave of mass uprisings, a new leadership came to power, which stood in solidarity with the rebels and expressed its intention to withdraw from the Warsaw Pact. In view of the threat of Hungary leaving the zone of Soviet influence, Soviet troops suppressed the uprising in November 1956. The head of the Hungarian government, I. Nagy, was arrested and subsequently shot. J. Kadar, loyal to Moscow, was placed at the head of Hungary.

Events in Poland and Hungary forced N. Khrushchev to recognize the need for a more equal partnership with European allies. In 1957, agreements were concluded on the legal status of Soviet troops in the GDR, Hungary, Poland and Romania. In 1958, Soviet troops were withdrawn from Romania.

Deterioration of Soviet-Chinese relations. The leadership of a number of countries of the socialist camp, such as Albania, Romania, China and the DPRK, negatively perceived the course towards de-Stalinization. In China, where the personality cult of Mao Zedong was developing, they did not accept N. Khrushchev’s new “revisionist” course and were suspicious of the USSR’s attempts to improve relations with the West.

The cooling of Soviet-Chinese relations was also due to the ambitions of the Chinese leadership, which wanted to see China as one of the centers of the world communist movement and to displace the USSR in these positions. In addition, China began its own nuclear project, while the USSR began to oppose the spread of nuclear technology and for a nuclear-free zone in the Far East.

In 1959, the Soviet-Chinese agreement on cooperation in the nuclear field was broken. In 1960, Soviet specialists left China, which worsened the economic chaos in the country. China began to make territorial claims to neighboring countries, including the USSR, declaring the inequality of territorial treaties between Tsarist Russia and China. In response, Moscow began to strengthen the grouping of troops on the border with China. The Soviet-Chinese confrontation weakened the communist bloc and created a new source of tension.

Anti-colonial movement in the politics of leading powers. In the mid-1950s, a new wave of anti-colonial movements began in the world. The independence of France's colonies in Indochina strengthened the anti-colonial movement in Asia and Africa. In 1960, 17 African countries gained independence. In Algeria, which had the status of a French department, the confrontation between the French authorities and supporters of independence escalated into a violent military conflict. In March 1962, the French government and representatives of the Algerian rebels signed the Evian Accords, according to which Algeria was recognized as an independent republic.

Countries freed from colonial dependence created their own intergovernmental organizations - the Organization of African Unity and the League of Arab States. These associations were designed to help new states overcome difficulties in their development and defend their interests in the international arena. A significant number of newly independent states did not want to join the existing military-political blocs, forming a non-aligned movement.

New post-colonial states often had no experience of independent state development and faced great difficulties in their internal life, which forced them to seek support from the superpowers and made them an arena of competition in the struggle for influence over them.

Competition developed between the USSR and the USA for influence on post-colonial states. The Soviet leadership relied on communist and similar forces, which was unacceptable to Washington. The policy of the American administration towards national liberation movements since the mid-1950s was based on the “domino” doctrine, which was based on the conclusion that revolutionary changes in one country provoke changes in neighboring countries through the “domino effect”. Since, as a result of such changes, communist and similar forces often came to power, the United States sought to prevent them, which objectively made them opponents of national liberation movements. This policy in a number of cases contradicted national interests post-colonial states and forced them to focus on the USSR. Washington's blockade with colonial powers such as Britain and France also had Negative influence on the US position in Asia and Africa.

Suez crisis. The position of the United States and its European allies towards Egypt led to an armed conflict. In Egypt, after the overthrow of the monarchy in 1952, new military leaders asked Western countries for help in modernizing the army and economic projects. However, Western countries surrounded the assistance with political conditions that were unacceptable to the country, which, in particular, contained demands for concessions to Israel. In this situation, Egypt began purchasing weapons from the USSR and its allies.

In July 1956, Egyptian President G. Nasser issued a decree on the nationalization of the Franco-British Suez Canal Company. In response, Britain, France and Israel launched a joint invasion of Egypt in October 1956 to seize the Suez Canal Zone. The USSR demanded an end to the aggression, threatening Great Britain, France and Israel with missile strikes on their territory. The US also condemned the actions of Britain and France as the triple invasion of Egypt was carried out without the knowledge of Washington and other NATO allies. In addition, the invasion could harm the US desire to improve relations with Arab countries and lead to their rapprochement with the USSR. Washington threatened Great Britain and France to cut off oil supplies provided by American corporations.

Under such pressure, in November 1956, Great Britain and France withdrew their troops from Egypt, and Israel retreated from the occupied lands in 1957. UN troops were stationed along the agreed armistice line as part of the first peacekeeping operation in the organization's history.

In the wake of the Suez crisis, the United States took measures to strengthen its position in the Arab world and counter the strengthening of Soviet influence here. In 1957, the Republican administration adopted the “Eisenhower Doctrine,” according to which the United States pledged to provide economic and military assistance to countries in the region if they became targets of “the aggression of world communism.” The American Congress has allocated significant funds for a program to counter the spread of socialist ideas in the Middle East.

3. International relations during the period of “détente” (mid-1960s – 1970s).

Nuclear Test Limitation Treaty. By the mid-1960s, the nuclear arsenal of the USSR and the United States was already so large that the side subjected to the first strike could inflict unacceptable damage on the attacking country. Therefore, the superpowers were forced to build a new scheme for ensuring strategic stability based on mutual vulnerability. It was necessary to establish strict rules of behavior in the space and nuclear world.

The question of limiting nuclear tests, even to the point of banning them, has been raised since the second half of the 1950s, since by that time it had been established that atomic explosions in the atmosphere, on the surface of the earth and under water cause radioactive contamination of vast areas. The Cuban missile crisis became the stimulus that forced a compromise. In August 1963, the USSR, USA and Great Britain signed the Treaty Banning Tests of Nuclear Weapons in the Atmosphere, Outer Space and Underwater in Moscow. The treaty was of unlimited duration and all states could join it. Later, more than 100 states joined the treaty, except France and China, which cited their lagging behind in the development of nuclear technology.

Treaty to Limit the Arms Race in Outer Space. The successes of superpowers in space exploration have created the threat of placing nuclear and other weapons on spaceships and celestial bodies. In 1963, the USSR and the USA initiated a discussion at the UN on the issue of not placing weapons of mass destruction in space. In December 1963, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution calling on all countries to refrain from launching objects with nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction into outer space.

In January 1967, the USSR, USA and Great Britain signed the Treaty on the Principles of Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, which is open-ended and open-ended. Outer space was declared open for exploration by all states on a non-discriminatory basis without national appropriation of space objects. The treaty prohibited the launch of weapons of mass destruction into space.

Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The authorities of the USSR and the USA were well aware that the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the expansion of the “nuclear club” would complicate the strategic situation, complicate the management of international crises and, in general, lead to a decrease in the role of the superpowers. Therefore, in 1965, they initiated a discussion within the UN of a treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons. As an incentive to encourage non-nuclear countries to join the treaty, they were promised assistance in mastering technologies for using nuclear power to produce cheap energy.

In July 1968, the USSR, USA and Great Britain signed the final version of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The contract was concluded for a period of 25 years with the possibility of subsequent extension. The USSR, USA and Great Britain gave guarantees against nuclear attack to countries that join the treaty. The right of non-nuclear countries to the peaceful use of atomic energy was not limited, subject to their compliance with the conditions of control by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Soon after signing, Germany and Japan joined the treaty. However, the PRC and France, among others, refused to sign the agreement, among others - India, Pakistan, Israel, and a number of Latin American and Arab countries.

American-French differences. The trend towards a “détente” of international tension in the 1960s manifested itself in Europe in the fact that the authorities of a number of leading Western European states began to noticeably change their positions in the inter-bloc confrontation. After Charles de Gaulle came to power in France in 1958, the country's approach to ensuring its national security changed. Charles de Gaulle did not consider subjugation of the United States the best means of ensuring the interests of France. Paris, unlike Washington, did not consider it a serious prospect global war with the Soviet Union. In his opinion, there was only a limited threat to France from the USSR, which could be contained by its own nuclear potential.

France's desire to isolate itself from the common military-political strategy with Washington intensified as the United States was drawn into the war in Vietnam. Charles de Gaulle suspected the United States of wanting to appropriate the French “colonial heritage” in Indochina and did not want to become a hostage to another Soviet-American confrontation around Vietnam.

In February 1966, France withdrew from military organization NATO. Charles de Gaulle motivated his decision by the fact that NATO policy was contrary to the interests of France and could lead to its automatic involvement in conflicts. France obtained from the United States the withdrawal of allied troops from the country and the liquidation of foreign military bases on its territory. All French armed forces were subordinate to the national command.

Soviet-French rapprochement. Charles de Gaulle sought to make it clear to Moscow that France was not a hypothetical enemy of the USSR along with the USA and other NATO countries. In June-July 1966, the French President paid a visit to the USSR. A Soviet-French declaration was signed in Moscow. In it, the parties agreed on the need to create an atmosphere of detente between the West and the East, and also agreed to hold regular intergovernmental consultations on pressing international issues.

In the following months, French officials made a number of visits to Eastern European countries. In their course, aspects of French policy that were undesirable for the USSR were revealed, since Charles de Gaulle believed that the liberation of Western Europe from American tutelage should be accompanied by the liberation of the states of Eastern Europe from Soviet influence.

"New Eastern Policy" of Germany. In 1968, the Social Democrats came to power in Germany. The new Chancellor W. Brandt did not abandon the idea of ​​​​reunifying Germany, if possible, through the annexation of the GDR to the Federal Republic of Germany, but believed that the path to solving this problem lay through reconciliation with the USSR and establishing dialogue with the GDR. The foreign policy strategy of the Social Democratic leadership of Germany included measures to normalize relations with Eastern European states and improve the situation around West Berlin.

In August 1970, during the visit of Chancellor W. Brandt to Moscow, a Soviet-German treaty was signed, in which Germany officially recognized the eastern borders of Germany and renounced claims to former German territories, which after World War II went to the USSR and Poland. In December 1970, a Polish-West German treaty was signed on West Germany's recognition of Poland's post-war borders. Finally, in December 1973, Germany recognized the legality of its border with Czechoslovakia and agreed to consider the Munich Pact of 1938 invalid.

The “New Eastern Policy” made it possible to reach a consensus on the problem of West Berlin. In September 1971, a Quadripartite Agreement was signed on the territory of West Berlin between the USSR, the USA, France and Great Britain, according to which West Berlin was recognized as a separate territorial unit with a special international status under the control of the allied Western powers. The parties pledged to refrain from using force in the West Berlin area, including to change the situation around it unilaterally.

The solution to the West Berlin problem made it possible to normalize relations between the GDR and the Federal Republic of Germany. West Germany abandoned the Hallstein Doctrine. In December 1972, the GDR and the Federal Republic of Germany entered into an agreement to establish relations on the basis of equality, respect for independence and territorial integrity. Both states pledged to resolve all their disputes through peaceful means. In September 1973, both German states were admitted to the UN. By 1974, the GDR was recognized by more than 100 states.

As a result of the “new Ostpolitik”, the situation around Germany was normalized in everything that did not relate to the issue of reunification.

The concept of “strategic parity” of the R. Nixon administration. The new Republican administration, headed by President R. Nixon, which came to power in the United States in 1969, continued the course towards “détente.” In February 1971, R. Nixon openly acknowledged the existence of “strategic parity” in the nuclear sphere between the USSR and the USA. This meant that none of the superpowers had a clear advantage in nuclear weapons and could not protect themselves in any way from a strike from the main hypothetical enemy.

The concept of “strategic parity” was directly related to the doctrine of “mutually assured destruction.” The superpowers had to come to terms with mutual vulnerability and abandon attempts to reduce it except by concerted means. The USSR and the USA turned out to be interested in maintaining military-political stability. A sharp gap between one of the parties in the field of offensive missile weapons, as well as the creation of highly reliable defensive systems by one of the parties, could lead to a violation of strategic stability.

Soviet-American agreements in the field of arms limitation control over weapons of mass destruction. The new American administration sought rapprochement with the Soviet Union, while simultaneously improving relations with the PRC. In September 1971, an indefinite Soviet-American Agreement on measures to reduce the risk of a nuclear war between the USSR and the USA was signed in Washington. The parties pledged to take measures to prevent the accidental or unauthorized use of nuclear weapons and to inform each other about all incidents related to a possible explosion of nuclear weapons. The agreement regulated the procedure for interaction between the USSR and the USA in the event of a “nuclear alarm”.

In May 1972, President R. Nixon paid a visit to Moscow, during which a package of agreements on the limitation of strategic arms (SALT-1 series) was signed. The package of agreements included the System Limitation Treaty missile defense(PRO). The parties pledged not to create missile defense systems covering the entire territory of the country. The agreement was indefinite, but it was possible to withdraw from it. Another element of this series of agreements was the Interim Agreement on Certain Measures in the Field of Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms. The agreement, concluded for a period of 5 years, limited the number of intercontinental ballistic missiles, which could be in service with the USSR and the USA.

Another document signed during R. Nixon’s visit to Moscow was the “Fundamentals of Relations between the USSR and the USA.” It formulated the principles that both states intended to guide their relations. The United States agreed to the principle of “peaceful coexistence” as the basis of Soviet-American relations. The USSR and the USA pledged to avoid confrontation, recognize the security interests of each side, not use force in bilateral relations, not threaten to use it, and not seek, directly or indirectly, to obtain unilateral advantages at the expense of the other side.

R. Nixon's arrival in the USSR laid the foundation for the tradition of regular meetings between the leaders of the two countries. During the Soviet-American summits of 1973-74. A number of important agreements were signed. In particular, during L. Brezhnev's visit to Washington in June 1973, an indefinite Agreement on the Prevention of Nuclear War was adopted. This document took into account the experience of the Soviet-Chinese confrontation, providing for the holding of Soviet-American consultations in the event of a threat of a nuclear clash not only between the superpowers, but also with a third country.

Helsinki process. In the conditions of “détente” in relations between the West and the East, dialogue on issues of pan-European security became possible. In 1972-73 Consultations were held in Helsinki with the participation of 32 Western and Eastern European countries on the preparation of the Pan-European Conference. The Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) itself opened in Helsinki in July 1973. Representatives of 33 European countries, as well as the USA and Canada took part in it. At the same time, since October 1973, negotiations were held in Vienna between NATO countries and the Warsaw Warsaw on the reduction of armed forces and weapons in Europe.

In August 1975, the OSCE Final Act was signed in Helsinki. The “first basket” of agreements declared the principles that the participating states were obliged to follow in their relationships. They were of a compromise nature, including contradictory formulations about the need to respect, on the one hand, the inviolability of borders and the territorial integrity of states, and on the other hand, the right of peoples to self-determination. In addition, states were obliged not to interfere in each other's internal affairs, not to use force or the threat of force, and to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms.

The agreements on the “second basket” recorded the agreement of the participants to promote the introduction of the most favored nation regime into trade and economic relations among themselves.

The content of the “third basket” consisted of obligations to cooperate in ensuring the individual rights of citizens. On the issue of ensuring human rights, acute contradictions emerged between the USSR and Western countries. The USSR and its allies sought to interpret human rights primarily as socio-economic rights (the right to work, free education, social assistance, etc.). Western countries emphasized civil rights and freedoms, such as the right to freedom of conscience and religious beliefs, the right to free access to information, pointing out the lack of such among Soviet citizens. The Final Act reflected both interpretations of human rights.

Overall, the Helsinki agreements consolidated the status quo in Europe. They represented, in essence, a pan-European non-aggression convention. the guarantors of which were, first of all, the USSR and the USA. The CSCE Final Act did not solve all the problems of relations between the West and the East, but it reduced the likelihood of European countries resorting to force to resolve disputes.

Events in Czechoslovakia 1968 In the 1960s, the USSR and a number of Eastern European countries introduced reforms designed to provide more economic freedoms and stimulate economic development. In Czechoslovakia, economic reforms led to discussions about the prospects for socialism in the country. After the change of leadership of the country in 1968, the liberal opposition began to talk about changing the political system. In the summer of 1968, student demonstrations took place in Czechoslovakia demanding the country's withdrawal from the Warsaw Warsaw Division and the withdrawal of Soviet troops.

In such conditions, the Soviet leadership decided on military intervention. In August 1968, ATS troops entered Czechoslovakia. In the fall of 1968, opposition protests were suppressed. Conservative representatives of the Communist Party were placed at the head of the country.

The invasion of Czechoslovakia caused a negative reaction not only in the West, but also in the socialist camp, provoking a split here. The leadership of a number of socialist countries was frightened by the possibility of interference in their internal affairs according to the “Czechoslovak scenario.” Albania and Romania refused to participate in the invasion. In September 1968, Albania left the Department of Internal Affairs. China and Yugoslavia condemned the actions of the USSR in Czechoslovakia.

"Brezhnev Doctrine". Under the influence of events in Czechoslovakia, the Soviet leadership, fearing growing ideological differences in the communist movement, developed the concept of “socialist solidarity.” In accordance with this doctrine, the countries of the socialist community were supposed to provide “fraternal assistance” to other countries of the commonwealth in the event of a threat to the socialist system. Socialist countries that were loyal to Moscow were considered members of the “socialist commonwealth.” The principles of “brotherly assistance” did not apply to Albania, Yugoslavia, China and the DPRK.

The new Soviet doctrine, which justified intervention in the internal affairs of the countries of the socialist community, was called in the West the “doctrine of limited sovereignty” or “Brezhnev doctrine.”

Soviet-Chinese confrontation. In the 1960s, the leadership of the PRC, convinced of the impossibility of establishing cooperation with the Soviet Union on an anti-American basis, took the path of confrontation with both the USSR and the USA. China's leaders proclaimed themselves leaders of the "Third World" in the struggle for liberation from American and Soviet hegemony.

In the wake of the “cultural revolution” in China, Beijing’s anti-Soviet rhetoric reached its peak. Relations between the CPC and the CPSU were severed. In January 1967, the Chinese authorities organized a siege of the Soviet embassy in Beijing, demanding a change in the line of the Soviet-Chinese border along the rivers in accordance with world standards. This led to the evacuation of Soviet diplomats from the PRC and the actual severance of diplomatic relations.

Armed incidents began on the Soviet-Chinese border. In March 1968, armed clashes occurred on Damansky Island. There was a threat of a large-scale war between the USSR and China. Moscow tried to enlist support in the confrontation with Beijing from Asian countries and the United States. However, the United States opposed any strikes against China. The threat of war was removed as a result of Soviet-Chinese negotiations in Beijing in September 1969. The USSR agreed to withdraw troops from the Soviet-Chinese border.

Normalization of US-China relations. In the second half of the 1960s, the “Soviet threat” began to push Beijing to seek ways to normalize relations with Washington. The United States, for its part, turned out to be interested in establishing relations with China, thus seeking to strengthen its position in East Asia and consolidate the split in the socialist camp.

In 1971, the PRC, with the support of the United States, was admitted to the UN in fact in place of Taiwan, which “voluntarily” left the organization, trying to avoid the expulsion procedure. In February 1972, US President Richard Nixon paid an official visit to China, as a result of which the Shanghai Communiqué was signed. The United States and China declared their rejection of attempts to establish their hegemony in East Asia and opposed attempts by other powers to do so. The United States promised to support China in the event of an increase in the threat from the USSR, and China promised to continue its line of distancing from Moscow. Thus, the United States abandoned the policy of “dual containment” of both the USSR and China in favor of containing only the Soviet Union.

Despite the agreements reached, diplomatic relations between the United States and China were not established,

The Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations, which emerged after the Second World War, was part of the Westphalian model of the world, based on the primacy of the sovereignty of the nation state. This system was consolidated by the Helsinki The final act 1975, which approved the principle of the inviolability of the state borders established in Europe.

An exceptionally positive feature of the Yalta-Potsdam order was the high degree of controllability of international processes.

The system was built on the coordination of the opinions of two superpowers, which were simultaneously the leaders of the largest military-political blocs: NATO and the Warsaw Treaty Organization (WTO). Bloc discipline guaranteed the execution of decisions made by the leaders by the remaining members of these organizations. Exceptions were extremely rare. For example, for the ATS, such an exception was Romania’s refusal in 1968 to support the entry of bloc troops into Czechoslovakia.

In addition, the USSR and the USA had their own spheres of influence in the “third world”, which included the so-called developing countries. The solution to economic and social problems in most of these countries, and often the strength of the power positions of specific political forces and figures, to one degree or another (in other cases, absolutely) depended on outside help and support. The superpowers used this circumstance to their advantage, directly or indirectly determining the foreign policy behavior of the Third World countries oriented towards them.

The state of confrontation in which the USA and the USSR, NATO and the Department of Internal Affairs constantly found themselves led to the fact that the parties systematically took steps hostile to each other, but at the same time they made sure that clashes and peripheral conflicts did not create the threat of a Great War. Both sides adhered to the concept of nuclear deterrence and strategic stability based on the “balance of fear.”

Thus, the Yalta-Potsdam system as a whole was a system of rigid order, in the main – effective and therefore viable.

The factor that did not allow this system to acquire long-term positive stability was ideological confrontation. The geopolitical rivalry between the USSR and the USA was only an external expression of the confrontation between different systems of social and ethical values. On the one hand - the ideals of equality, social justice, collectivism, the priority of intangible values; on the other - freedom, competition, individualism, material consumption.

Ideological polarization determined the irreconcilability of the parties and made it impossible for them to abandon the strategic goal of absolute victory over the bearers of antagonistic ideology, over the opposing socio-political system.

The outcome of this global confrontation is known. Without going into details, we note that it was not without alternative. In the defeat and collapse of the USSR main role The so-called human factor played a role. Authoritative political scientists S.V. Kortunov and A.I. Utkin, having analyzed the reasons for what happened, independently came to the conclusion that the transition of the USSR to an open society and the rule of law could have been carried out without the collapse of the country, if not for a number of gross miscalculations allowed by the ruling elite of the late Soviet Union (1).

In foreign policy, this was expressed, according to the American researcher R. Hunter, in the strategic retreat of the USSR from positions achieved as a result of victory in World War II and the destruction of its external outposts. The Soviet Union, according to Hunter, “surrendered all its international positions” (2).

The disappearance from the political map of the USSR, one of the two pillars of the post-war world order, led to the collapse of the entire Yalta-Potsdam system.

The new system of international relations is still in its formation stage. The procrastination is explained by the fact that controllability of world processes was lost: countries that were previously in the sphere of Soviet influence found themselves in an uncontrolled state for some time; countries in the US sphere of influence, in the absence of a common enemy, began to act more independently; “fragmentation of the world” has developed, expressed in the intensification of separatist movements, ethnic and religious conflicts; The importance of force has grown in international relations.

The situation in the world 20 years after the collapse of the USSR and the Yalta-Potsdam system does not give reason to believe that the previous level of controllability of world processes has been restored. And most likely, in the foreseeable future, “the processes of world development will remain predominantly spontaneous in their nature and course” (3).

Today, the formation of a new system of international relations is influenced by many factors. We will indicate only the most important ones:

Firstly, globalization. It is expressed in the internationalization of the economy, the expansion of flows of information, capital, and people themselves around the world with increasingly porous borders. As a result of globalization, the world is becoming more integral and interdependent. Any more or less noticeable shifts in one part of the world have an echo in other parts of it. However, globalization is a contradictory process, which also has negative consequences that stimulate states to take isolationist measures;

Secondly, the growth of global problems, the solution of which requires the united efforts of the world community. In particular, today everything higher value for humanity there are problems associated with climate anomalies on the planet;

Thirdly, the rise and increasing role in international life of new world-class powers, primarily China, India and the so-called regional powers such as Brazil, Indonesia, Iran, South Africa and some others. The new system of international relations, its parameters can no longer depend only on the Atlantic powers. This, in particular, affects the time frame for the formation of a new system of international relations;

Fourthly, the deepening of social inequality in the world community, the strengthening of the division of global society into a world of wealth and stability (“golden billion”) and a world of poverty, instability, and conflicts. Between these world poles, or, as they say, “North” and “South,” confrontation is growing. This fuels radical movements and is one of the sources of international terrorism. The “South” wants justice to be restored, and for the sake of it, the disadvantaged masses can support any al-Qaeda, any tyrant.

In general, there are two opposing trends in global development: one is towards the integration and universalization of the world, the growth international cooperation and the second - to the disintegration and disintegration of the world into several opposing regional political or even military-political associations based on common economic interests, defending the right of their peoples to development and prosperity.

All this makes us take seriously the prediction of the English researcher Ken Bus: “The new century... may be more like the colorful and restless Middle Ages than the static twentieth century, but it will take into account the lessons learned from both” (4).

Plan
Introduction
1 Features
Bibliography

Introduction

The Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations is a designation accepted in geopolitics for the system of international relations enshrined in treaties and agreements of the Yalta and Potsdam Conference

For the first time, the issue of a post-war settlement was raised at the highest level during the Tehran Conference of 1943, where even then the strengthening of the position of the two powers - the USSR and the USA - was clearly evident, to which the decisive role in determining the parameters of the post-war world was increasingly being transferred. That is, even during the war, the prerequisites for the formation of the foundations of a future bipolar world are born. This trend has already fully manifested itself in Yalta and Potsdam conferences, when the main role in solving key problems associated with the formation of a new model of defense was played by two, now superpowers, the USSR and the USA.

The Potsdam era became a historical precedent, since never before had the entire world been artificially divided into spheres of influence between two states. The bipolar balance of power quickly led to the beginning of a confrontation between the capitalist and socialist camps, called in history the Cold War.

The Potsdam era was characterized by extreme ideologization of international relations, as well as the constant threat of direct military confrontation between the USSR and the USA.

The end of the Potsdam era was marked by the collapse of the world socialist camp, following a failed attempt to reform the economy of the Soviet Union, and was consolidated by the Bialowieza Accords of 1991.

1. Features

· The multipolar organization of the structure of international relations was eliminated, and a bipolar structure of post-war international relations emerged, in which the leading role was played by two superstates - the USSR and the USA. The significant separation of the military-power, political, economic and cultural-ideological capabilities of these two powers from other countries of the world led to the formation of two main, dominant “centers of power” that had a system-forming influence on the structure and character of the entire international system.

· confrontational nature - a systemic, complex confrontation in the economic, political, military, ideological and other spheres, a confrontation that from time to time acquired the character of an acute conflict, crisis interaction. This type of confrontation in the format of mutual threats to use force, balancing on the brink of a real war, was called the “cold war.”

· Post-war bipolarity took shape during the era of nuclear weapons, which led to a revolution in both military and political strategies.

· The distribution of the world into the sphere of influence of two superstates both in Europe and on the periphery, the emergence of “divided” countries (Germany, Korea, Vietnam, China) and the formation of military-political blocs under the leadership of the USSR and the USA led to globalization and in-depth geopolitical structuring systemic opposition and confrontation.

· Post-war bipolarity took the form of a political-ideological confrontation, an ideological confrontation between the “free world” of Western democracies led by the USA and the “socialist world” led by the USSR. The USA wanted to establish American hegemony in the world under the slogan “Pax Americana”, the USSR argued about the inevitability of the victory of socialism on a global scale. Ideological confrontation, the “struggle of ideas,” led to mutual demonization opposite side and remained an important feature of the post-war MOD system. The Soviet-American confrontation looked primarily as a rivalry between a system of political and ethical ideals, social and moral principles.

· The post-war world ceased to be predominantly Eurocentric, the international system turned into a global, worldwide one. The destruction of colonial systems and the formation of regional and subregional subsystems of international relations were carried out under the dominant influence of the horizontal spread of systemic bipolar confrontation and trends of economic and political globalization.

· The Yalta-Potsdam order did not have a strong legal basis. The agreements that formed the basis of the post-war order were either oral, not officially recorded, or were secured primarily in declarative form, or their full implementation was blocked as a result of the severity of contradictions and confrontation between the main subjects of post-war international relations.

· The UN, one of the central elements of the Yalta-Potsdam system, became the main mechanism for coordinating efforts with the aim of eliminating wars and conflicts from international life by harmonizing relations between states and creating a global system of collective security. Post-war realities and the intransigence of confrontational relations between the USSR and the USA significantly limited the ability of the UN to realize its statutory functions and goals. The main task of the UN was primarily focused on preventing an armed conflict between the USSR and the USA at both the global and regional levels, that is, maintaining the stability of Soviet-American relations as the main prerequisite for international security and peace in the post-war period.

Bibliography:

1. In some cases, sources shorten the name to “Yalta system” or “Potsdam system”. The terms “epoch”, “order” and “world order” are also used.

2. Konstantin Khudoley, professor, dean of the Faculty of International Relations of St. Petersburg State University:

After World War II, international relations were determined by the Yalta-Potsdam system. Its main features were the agreements of the three great powers that won the Second World War. These states - primarily the United States of America and the Soviet Union (England gradually faded into the background) - recognized certain spheres of influence of each other. And for a long time, with the exception of certain aspects, the agreements remained in force and no one invaded anyone else’s zone of influence. At the same time, the Yalta-Potsdam system aroused the indignation of many countries, whose role was thus significantly diminished. In addition, an integral feature of the Yalta-Potsdam system was the cold war, the arms race, which had reached a truly critical point, and constant tension.

Also see, e.g. Here: ,