The UN is part of the Yalta-Potsdam system. The main parameters of the modern system of international relations. New frontiers in Europe

The Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations is the designation of the system of international relations adopted in geopolitics, fixed by the treaties and agreements of the Yalta and Potsdam conferences. This system of international relations existed throughout the second half of the 20th century. The conference in Yalta can be considered the beginning of the formation of a new system of international relations. On February 4-11, the "Big Three" Stalin, Roosevelt, Churchill, tried to reach an agreement on the fate of the world and, first of all, of Europe. In fact, there were two main problems: to choose a political regime for the liberated countries and to draw their borders. The Yalta Declaration on a "Liberated Europe" was very clear, at least with regard to the first one: the liberated countries were to choose their own governments through free elections. In addition, the fate of post-war Germany was decided at the conference. The question arose about the joint occupation of its territory. It was also agreed on the amount of reparations (about 20 billion dollars, half of this amount was due to the USSR). The participants in the Yalta Conference declared that their adamant goal was to destroy German militarism and Nazism and create guarantees that "Germany will never again be able to disturb the peace", "disarm and disband all German armed forces and destroy the German General Staff forever", " seize or destroy all German military equipment, liquidate or take control of all German industry that could be used for war production; subject all war criminals to just and speedy punishment; wipe out the Nazi Party, Nazi laws, organizations and institutions; eliminate all Nazi and militaristic influence from public institutions, from the cultural and economic life of the German people. The fate of post-war Europe was decided, in particular, such important issues as the fate of post-war Germany, the Polish question and the Balkans were touched upon, and the situation in the Far East was discussed. A new "League of Nations" was formed with a new name for the UN. A provision on post-war cooperation between the USA and the USSR was also stipulated. In principle, Stalin and Roosevelt did not deny such a possibility, but was it possible? Everything was very ambiguous. On the one hand, the adoption of agreed decisions at the conference showed the possibility of cooperation between states with different social systems. There was a strong alliance against a common enemy. In this regard, the countries of the anti-Hitler coalition began to think about creating an organization that could prevent future conflicts like World War II.

The Yalta-Potsdam order did not have a strong contractual and legal basis. The agreements that formed the basis of the post-war order were either oral, not officially recorded, or were fixed mainly in a declarative form, or their full implementation was blocked as a result of the acuteness of contradictions and confrontation between the main subjects of post-war international relations. The system worked for almost the entire second half of the 20th century, providing some balance in the world, but in the end, like any mechanism that has expired, the Yalta-Potsdam system stopped its work. The process of the collapse of the Yalta-Potsdam system began with the end of the Cold War. The policy of M. S. Gorbachev, associated with "perestroika", "glasnost" and "new thinking", was aimed at concessions to the capitalist countries, moreover, the concessions were unilateral. That is why to this day the United States believes that they won the Cold War. Despite the loss of the Soviet Union in the Cold War, its end meant the end of confrontation, the arms race, interference in the internal affairs of the Eastern European states, and hence it follows that the confrontation between the two camps - the capitalist and the socialist, has ended due to the collapse of the latter camp. The end of the bipolarity generated by the Yalta-Potsdam system. But, the collapse of the USSR, namely the Belovezhskaya agreement on December 8, 1991, which changed the situation in the world, became the decisive stage. Together with the Soviet Union, the Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations also sank into oblivion. Was it possible to maintain this system of international relations? If we imagine that there was no Belovezhskaya agreement and the Soviet Union did not collapse in 1991, then the Yalta-Potsdam system would still not be able to function for a long time, because it was created under different conditions, when the Soviet Union was in Stalin's "hedgehogs" and represented threat to the capitalist world. The fact is that the Yalta-Potsdam concept functioned throughout the second half of the 20th century, correcting the shortcomings of the former world and the former system, erasing the remnants of the past, but, in the end, this system itself gave rise to new difficulties and created shortcomings. As a result, by the end of the 20th century, the system was outdated and could no longer meet the requirements of the modern world. That is why the Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations could not be preserved, since it no longer corresponds to the present. The world has ceased to be bipolar, we live in an age of globalization and integration, and in order to maintain the new world, a new system is needed, formed from the experience of past years, but at the same time adapted to our modern times. Question 8 Swedish model of social states

The term "Swedish model" appeared in the late 60s, when Sweden began to successfully combine rapid economic growth with extensive political reforms against a background of relative social conflictlessness. This image of a successful and serene Sweden contrasted particularly strongly then with the growth of social and political conflicts in the surrounding world. The Swedish model was identified with the most developed form of the welfare state.

Another way of defining the Swedish model came from the fact that two dominant goals were clearly distinguished in Swedish economic policy: full employment and income equalization. Its results have been an active policy in a highly developed labor market and an exceptionally large public sector (in this case, primarily the sphere of redistribution, and not state property), which is engaged in the accumulation and redistribution of significant funds for social and economic purposes.

Economists define the Swedish model as a combination of full employment (official unemployment below 2% of the active population) and price stability through restrictive economic policies complemented by selective measures to maintain high levels of employment and investment. This model was introduced by trade union economists in the early 1950s and was used to a certain extent by social democratic governments.

Finally, in the broadest sense, the Swedish model is a model of socio-economic development, it is the whole complex of socio-economic and political realities in the country with its high standard of living and wide scale of social policy.

The main goals of the Swedish model for a long time were full employment and income equalization. This is due to the special strength of the Swedish labor movement. From 1932 to the present (with the exception of 1976-1982 and 1991-1994), the Swedish Social Democratic Workers' Party (SDRPSH) has been in power. For decades, the Central Association of Trade Unions of Sweden (TSOPS) worked closely with the SDRPSH, which strengthened the reformist labor movement in the country. In addition, the Swedish model was based on a spirit of compromise and mutual restraint between the labor movement (trade unions and social democrats) on the one hand and large industrial companies on the other. This spirit of harmony was based on the realization that small Sweden can only survive in a competitive big world if all sides work together.

Several national character traits can also be noted: rationalism, self-discipline, careful study of approaches to solving problems, the desire for common agreement and the ability to avoid conflicts.

In the post-war period, the development of Sweden was favored by numerous factors: the preservation of industrial potential in conditions of neutrality, a steady demand for export products, a skilled workforce, a highly organized and ethnically homogeneous society and a political system dominated by one large party that pursued a pragmatic line and formed a strong government. Under such favorable conditions, during a period of relatively high economic growth rates (3–5% per year) from the late 1940s to the late 1960s, the private sector grew and the well-being of the population increased.

The Swedish model provided for the active role of the state. Its implementation was the merit of the Social Democrats, who relied on raising living standards through gradual reforms within the framework of capitalism with a pragmatic attitude towards both goals and means to achieve them, taking into account practical expediency and a sober consideration of real possibilities.

After the foundations of the Swedish model were formulated in the trade union movement in the early 1950s, they became the core of the economic policy of the Social Democrats. The main principle of this policy was: there is no reason for the socialization of the means of production and the rejection of the benefits of an efficient market system of production for the sake of ideological postulates. The pragmatism of this policy is more simply expressed by the well-known saying: "There is no need to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs."

What are the results? Sweden's success in the labor market is undeniable. The country maintained exceptionally low unemployment in the post-war period - right up to the 1990s, including from the mid-1970s, when serious structural problems led to mass unemployment in most of the developed countries of the West.

There have been some achievements in the long struggle in the area of ​​equalizing incomes and living standards. This happened in two ways. First, the wage solidarity policy was aimed at achieving equal pay for equal work. From the end of the 1950s to the beginning of the 1990s, wage differences between different groups in the TSOPS were reduced by more than half. They also dwindled between workers and employees. Second, the government used progressive taxation and a system of extensive public services. As a result, equalization in Sweden has reached one of the highest levels in the world.

Sweden has achieved less success in other areas: prices have risen faster than in most developed countries, since the 1970s GDP has grown more slowly than in a number of Western European countries, and labor productivity has grown weakly. Inflation and relatively modest economic growth were the price paid for full employment and equality policies.

At one time, the successful functioning of the Swedish model depended on a number of domestic and international factors. The main and most important prerequisite was a high and constant rate of economic growth, which made it possible to expand private and public consumption. The second prerequisite was full employment and the fact that the state had to provide social security to only a very small part of the citizens. Therefore, the welfare system could be financed by taxation. The third premise was that in the labor market people were employed on a permanent basis throughout the working day. These prerequisites persisted from the mid-1950s to the mid-1970s.

Question Prague Spring.

(January-August 1968) For almost eight months in 1968, the Czechoslovak Socialist Republic (Czechoslovakia) experienced a period of profound change, unprecedented in the history of the communist movement. These transformations were the natural result of the growing crisis in this relatively prosperous and developed country, in whose political culture predominantly democratic traditions are deeply rooted. The process of democratization in Czechoslovakia, prepared by the reformist forces within the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, for a number of years went almost unnoticed by most analysts and politicians of the West and East, including the Soviet leaders. In 1968, the “Prague Spring” began in Czechoslovakia. The new leadership of this republic, headed by A. Dubcek, proclaimed a course towards “socialism with a human face”. Within the framework of this course was: the abolition of censorship, the creation of opposition parties, the pursuit of a more independent foreign policy. But this could not please Moscow, which believed that this could lead to a split in the socialist bloc.

Therefore, it was decided to send troops of the Warsaw Pact countries to Czechoslovakia in order to change the leadership of the republic. And on August 21, Operation Danube began. Within one day, the troops captured all the main objects on the territory of Czechoslovakia. The Czechoslovak army offered no resistance. But ordinary citizens offered passive resistance: they blocked the streets, staged sit-ins, and so on. In early September, the operation ended and the troops were withdrawn.

YALTA-POTSDAM SYSTEM OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS - the order of the world order that arose after the Second World War. Its basis was laid by the agreements of the victorious great powers that recognized each other's spheres of influence in the world conflict, formalized at the Yalta (1945) and Potsdam (1945) conferences. The main features of this system are bipolarity, due to the relative military-political and economic superiority of the two superpowers (the USSR and the USA); the presence of weapons of mass destruction capable of repeatedly destroying the new poles of the world order; military-political blocs formed around the superpowers that were in confrontation.

Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations , - like the previous ones, was recognized as part of the Westphalian model of the world. Position on the balance of power, which at one time the League of Nations tried to oppose principle of collective security, again became one of the key elements of the world order in the second half of the 20th century. However, in geopolitical and military-strategic terms, the world was divided into spheres of influence between two superpowers - the USSR and the USA - and their allies; for the preservation and spread of this influence was a fierce struggle, largely due to ideological considerations. Subsequently, such a structure of the world order was defined as bipolar(bipolar).

During the war years, the major Allied Powers—the United States, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, France, and China—took steps towards the creation of a new international organization based on the platform of their opposition to the Axis powers—Germany, Italy, and Japan. Adopted on June 12, 1941, at the height of the war, the Inter-Allied Declaration called for post-war international cooperation. The Atlantic Charter, signed on August 14, 1941, by US President F. Roosevelt and British Prime Minister W. Churchill, was the first sign of the intentions of Great Britain and the United States to create a new international organization immediately after the restoration of peace. The term "united nations" first appeared on January 1, 1942 in the Declaration of the United Nations, signed by 26 representatives of states in Washington, DC. The Moscow and Teheran Conferences in October and December 1943 laid the foundation for this new organization, and the Dumbarton Oaks Villa Conference in Washington (August 21-October 7, 1944) was the first meeting specifically organized to discuss its structure. In Dumbarton Oaks, Proposals were prepared for the creation of a General International Organization, which were approved by the USA, China, Great Britain and the USSR. At the Yalta Conference in February 1945, the Big Five powers - the United States, Britain, France, the Soviet Union and China - worked out a formula for resolving disputes.

The UN was formally established at the Conference on International Organization held April 25-June 26, 1945 in San Francisco. On June 26, representatives of 50 countries unanimously adopted the Charter of the United Nations. The charter entered into force on October 24, after the majority of representatives of the signatory countries confirmed their authority to ratify this document; since then, this date has been celebrated annually as United Nations Day. Poland, not represented at the Conference, later signed the Charter and became the 51st member of the original UN.

The creation of the UN, like many other diplomatic undertakings, was a reflection of intersecting and sometimes polar interests. The major powers, in creating the new organization, hoped that they would be able to maintain after the Second World War the global power that they had established, relying on their military might, as victors. However, the Cold War, which began soon after, began to put limits on the powers of the new organization.

The UN Charter intended to turn the Organization into a "center for coordinating the actions of nations" on the path to achieving international peace. Its members pledged to support the UN in any action it undertakes and to refrain from the use of force against other nations except in self-defence.

New members are admitted to the UN on the recommendation of the Security Council, and at least two-thirds of the participants in the General Assembly must vote for their entry into the ranks of the Organization. Most of the 51 states that originally signed the Charter were Western nations. In 1955, 16 new members were admitted to the UN, including several non-Western states, and in 1960, another 17 African countries. As a result of the processes of gradual decolonization, the representation of the United Nations has become increasingly broad and diverse. By 1993, about two dozen new states had entered the UN, which had emerged as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union and some countries of Eastern Europe, and the number of member states had reached 182. Membership in the UN had become almost universal. And only a very small number of countries (Switzerland among them) are not members of the UN.

In the 1970s and 1980s, US officials, including President R. Reagan, began to show disdain for the UN. US membership dues were delayed, and the country's position, especially given the growth in the number of non-Western states, was characterized by growing isolation. The United States withdrew from UNESCO, expressing dissatisfaction with the "politicization" of this UN educational organization. However, in 1988, the former US representative to the UN, George W. Bush, was elected American president, who eventually restored the country's status as the main member of the Organization and repaid part of the contribution debts.

The new involvement in UN affairs allowed the US in 1990 to reach a consensus among the great powers on a Security Council resolution authorizing military action to restore the statehood of Kuwait, occupied by Iraq. On January 16, 1991, a coalition led by the United States took military action against Iraq under the auspices of the UN.

Although business is conducted in six different languages ​​(English, Arabic, Spanish, Chinese, Russian, French), only English and French are official languages ​​of the UN.

The Crimean Conference, on the initiative of the American delegation, adopted an addendum to the draft worked out in Dumbarton Oaks on the question of the procedure for voting in the UN Security Council. The statement of the American delegation, made on February 6, 1945 by US Secretary of State Stettinius, contained an analysis of Roosevelt's proposal that "all major decisions relating to the preservation of peace, including all economic and military coercive measures" should be taken only with the unanimity of the permanent members Council. This proposal formed the basis of Article 27 of the Charter.

At the conference, a number of important decisions were made on military issues and on the problems of the post-war order of the world, although, as at previous conferences, serious disagreements appeared in the Crimea. Plans and terms for the final defeat of enemy forces were agreed upon, as well as the coordination of military operations in Germany. Declaring that Allied strikes would be carried out until the complete unconditional surrender of the enemy, the United States, the USSR and England emphasized that their "uncompromising goal is the destruction of German militarism and Nazism and the creation of guarantees that Germany will never again be able to disturb the peace of the whole world. ". Further, the three powers declared that they would not seek the destruction of the German people and after the eradication of Nazism and militarism, he would be able to get a worthy place in the world community. The USA, the USSR and England agreed to occupy three zones in Germany, and to create an allied administration and a special control body of the commanders-in-chief of the three powers with headquarters in Berlin for command and control. It was decided to invite France to occupy a certain zone and take part in the work of the control body - the Allies agreed that Germany would be obliged to compensate for the damage that she had caused to the Allied Powers "in kind to the maximum extent possible, for which a special reparations commission.

A large place in the work of the conference was occupied by the Polish question, which caused a sharp controversy between Stalin and Churchill, mainly about the German-Polish border. As for the eastern borders, everyone agreed that it should follow the Curzon line.

Questions about Yugoslavia were also considered in the Crimea and the "Declaration on a Liberated Europe" was adopted. The Powers have created a mechanism for constant consultation with each other. Such a mechanism was to be the conferences of foreign ministers that were constantly held in turn in the three capitals. At the suggestion of the American side, the issue of the entry of the USSR into the war against Japan was agreed upon no later than three months after the surrender of Germany under the following conditions: preservation of the existing situation of the Mongolian People's Republic, restoration of Russia's rights violated by the Portsmouth Peace Treaty (1905), transfer Soviet Union of the Kuril Islands.

The decisions of the Crimean Conference were of great importance for the speedy end of the war and for the post-war organization.

All the basic principles of the post-war settlement and solution of the question of Germany were adopted at the Potsdam (Berlin) Conference of the Heads of Government of the USSR, the USA and Britain. It took place from July 17 to August 2, 1945 with a two-day break during the parliamentary elections in England. The delegations were headed: the Soviet one - by I. V. Stalin, the American one - by G. Truman, the British one - by W. Churchill, and K. Attlee was his deputy.

The Conservatives were defeated in the British parliamentary elections. Labor, which collected 48.5% of the vote, received 389 seats in the House of Commons, which accounted for 62% of all mandates. As a result, K. Attlee, having become prime minister, returned to Potsdam as the head of the British delegation.

Despite the differences in approaches to resolving a number of issues of post-war settlement in Germany, the conference managed to come to an agreement and sign agreements. The goals and objectives of the Control Council, which was the supreme authority on German territory, the principles of relations with Germany in the political and economic fields were determined. The main directions in the implementation of these principles were demilitarization, denazification and democratization.

The victorious powers in Potsdam reached an agreement on the eradication of German militarism. The complete disarmament and liquidation of all German industry that could be used for the production of armaments was envisaged. Prohibited militaristic and Nazi propaganda-1 yes. All Nazi laws were repealed.

Three countries declared that war criminals must be punished. It was decided to bring them to "a quick and fair trial" and by September 1, 1945, the first list of Nazi criminals would be published. Later, peace treaties with countries participating in the war on the side of Germany included provisions on the need to detain and extradite war criminals.

To determine the specific guilt of the persons who unleashed the Second World War, the allied states - the USSR, the USA, Britain and France - created the International Military Tribunal. He began work in Nuremberg on November 20, 1945 and ended it on October 1, 1946, with the death sentence on 12 major war criminals: Goering, Ribbentrop, Keitel, Kaltenbrunner, Rosenberg, Frank, Frick, Streicher, Sukel, Jodl, Seyss-Inquart, Bormann (in absentia); Hess, Funk, Reder were sentenced to life imprisonment, Spreer and Schirach were sentenced to 20 years in prison; by the age of 15 - Noirat; by the age of 10 - Doenitz.

The USSR, the USA and England agreed on reparations for Germany. The Soviet Union received as reparations industrial equipment from its zone of occupation, as well as 25% of industrial capital equipment from the western zones. The USA, England and other countries carried out their reparation claims at the expense of the western zones of occupation and German assets abroad. The Allies agreed that after satisfaction of the reparations claims, as many resources as needed for Germany to continue to exist without outside help should be left.

As for territorial issues, the city of Koenigsberg with the area adjacent to it was transferred to the USSR (in July 1946 it was renamed Kaliningrad), the border between Poland and Germany was established along the line of the Oder and Western Neisse rivers, part of East Prussia and the city of Danzig went to Poland.

The Allies decided to move part of the German population from Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary to Germany. At the same time, attention was paid to the fact that the Control Council should monitor the humane attitude towards him.

The issue of concluding peace treaties with Italy, Finland, Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary was also resolved. To prepare these treaties, a Council of Foreign Ministers (CMFA) was established, which was also to deal with the problem of the former Italian colonies.

The decisions of the Potsdam Conference were of great importance for relations with Germany and the development of international relations in Europe, although the United States, Britain and France soon began to gradually move away from the agreed line.

- Westphalian system of international relations(after finishing Thirty Years' War in 1648). It has the idea of ​​a balance of power;

- Vienna System of International Relations(after finishing Napoleonic Wars in 1814). She has an idea European concert;

- Versailles-Washington System of International Relations(according to the results first world war);

- (according to the results World War II); formed the basis of a bipolar world along the line of confrontation East (bloc of socialist states) - West (capitalist world)

Researchers generally agree that the Yalta-Potsdam system ended in 1990, 3 Oct. unification of Germany. Under Chancellor Hermunt Kohl.
Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations- the designation of the system of international relations adopted in geopolitics, fixed by treaties and agreements of the Yalta and Potsdam conference .

This trend was fully manifested already at the Yalta and Potsdam conferences, when the main role in solving the key problems associated with the formation of a new model of the Defense Ministry was two, now the superpowers of the USSR and the USA.

The Potsdam era set a historical precedent, because never before had the whole world been artificially divided into spheres of influence between two states. The bipolar alignment of forces quickly led to the beginning of the confrontation between the capitalist and socialist camps, referred to in history as the Cold War.

The Potsdam era is characterized by an extraordinary ideologization international relations as well as the constant threat of the beginning of a direct military confrontation between the USSR and the USA.

The end of the Potsdam era was marked by the unification of Germany and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Under Chancellor Hermunt Kohl.

Peculiarities

• 
  Was liquidated multipolar organization structure of international relations, a bipolar structure of post-war IRs arose, in which the leading role was played by two superstates- USSR and USA.
• 
  confrontational nature- systemic, complex confrontation in the economic, political, military, ideological and other spheres,
• 
  Post-war bipolarity took shape in the era of nuclear weapons
• 
  The distribution of the world into spheres 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
• 
  The Yalta-Potsdam order did not have a strong contractual and legal basis. The agreements that formed the basis of the post-war order were either oral, not officially recorded, or were fixed mainly in a declarative form, or their full implementation was blocked as a result of the sharpness 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 in order to exclude wars and conflicts from international life

The Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations that arose 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 Final Act of 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 a high degree of controllability of international processes.

The system was based on the coordination of the opinions of the two superpowers, which were at the same time the leaders of the largest military-political blocs: NATO and the Warsaw Pact Organization (WTO). Block discipline guaranteed the execution of the decisions taken by the leaders by the rest of the members of these organizations. Exceptions were extremely rare. For example, for the Warsaw Pact, 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 of economic and social problems in most of these countries, and often the strength of the positions of power 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 US and the USSR, NATO and the Warsaw Pact were constantly located 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 the ideological confrontation. The geopolitical rivalry between the USSR and the USA was only an outward 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 non-material values; on the other - freedom, competition, individualism, material consumption.

Ideological polarization determined the intransigence of the parties, made it impossible for them to abandon their strategic orientation towards an absolute victory over the bearers of an antagonistic ideology, over the opposite social and political system.

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

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

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 the process of formation. The delay is explained by the fact that the controllability of world processes was lost: the countries that were previously in the sphere of Soviet influence turned out to be 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” developed, expressed in the activation of separatist movements, ethnic and confessional conflicts; in international relations, the importance of force has grown.

The situation in the world 20 years after the collapse of the USSR and the Yalta-Potsdam system does not give grounds 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."

Today, many factors influence the formation of a new system of international relations. We list only the most important ones:

First, globalization. It is expressed in the internationalization of the economy, the expansion of the flow of information, capital, the people themselves around the world with increasingly transparent 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 controversial process that has negative consequences, stimulating states to take isolationist measures;

secondly, the growth of global problems, the solution of which requires the combined efforts of the world community. In particular, today the problems associated with climate anomalies on the planet are becoming increasingly important for humanity;

thirdly, the rise and growth of the role in the 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 and its parameters cannot now 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 the global society into the world of wealth and stability (“golden billion”) and the world of poverty, instability, conflicts. Between these world poles, or, as they say - "North" and "South", the confrontation is growing. This feeds radical movements and is one of the sources of international terrorism. The "South" wants to restore justice, and for the sake of it, the disadvantaged masses can support any "al-Qaeda", any tyrant.

On the whole, two tendencies oppose in world development: one - towards the integration and universalization of the world, the growth of international cooperation, and the second - towards the disintegration and disintegration of the world into several opposing regional political or even military-political associations based on common economic interests, upholding the right of their peoples to development and prosperity.

All this makes us take seriously the forecast of the English researcher Ken Buses: "The new century ... may be more like a colorful and restless Middle Ages than a static twentieth century, but will take into account the lessons learned from both."