The system of international relations at the turn of 20 21. International relations at the turn of the XX-XXI centuries

At the turn of the XIX-XX centuries. Humanity has entered a new era for its development - the era of imperialism. The development of capitalism, consolidation and the search for new markets for selling products and pumping out resources forced a person to take a fresh look at the world around him. The development of science and technology, the emergence of new means of communication and transportation - all this contributed to the industrial leap forward, pushing some countries to the forefront and leaving others behind. This lesson is devoted to the relationship between countries at the turn of the century and their characteristics.

International Relations at the Beginning of the 20th Century

In the first years of the 20th century, the growing contradictions between the leading world powers continued, which eventually led to the First World War.

background

Causes of the Crisis in International Relations

In the second half of the 19th century, the political map of the world changed significantly. A united Italy and a united Germany appear, striving to participate in the colonial division of the world. The collapse of the Ottoman Empire continues, as a result of which Bulgaria, Romania and Serbia gain independence.

By the beginning of the 20th century, the major world powers had divided most of Africa and Asia, either turning these territories into their colonies, or placing them in economic and political dependence on themselves. Colonial conflicts and disputes led to the aggravation of international relations.

The rise of nationalism. In the Balkans, the formation of nation-states continued; he was opposed by multinational empires - the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian.

In the countries of Europe, the approach of war was felt; states sought to find allies in a future war. By the end of the 19th century, the Triple Alliance took shape, which included Germany, Austria-Hungary and Italy.

Events

1891 - Russo-French alliance.

1904 - creation of an alliance between France and England, called the Entente.

1907 - Russia joins the Entente. Two powerful military-political blocs - the Entente and the Triple Alliance - finally took shape.

Conclusion

Every year the contradictions between the states became stronger. This is largely due to the emergence of a united Germany - a militaristic state that sought to remake the colonial system: to press the leading colonial powers (Great Britain and France). The German threat became a stimulus for the creation of the Entente, which in many respects had the character of a defensive alliance.

The aggravation of the situation was also influenced by the interests of the economic elites of the largest states, which had levers of pressure on the authorities. They were interested in expanding sales markets and economic expansion, which meant a clash with the interests of competing states. War at that time was still considered the normal way to resolve such contradictions.

Governments foresaw an imminent war. They spent significant funds on the development of the army, increasing its strength and creating new weapons.

Abstract

By 1900, several countries began to stand out in the world political system, which played a leading role in various spheres of society - political, economic, social and spiritual. These states were: in Europe - Great Britain, France, Germany and the Russian Empire; in Asia - Japan; in the western hemisphere - USA. If earlier the influence of these countries was limited only by their location, their regionality, then with the development of the colonial system and the advent of the era of imperialism, the influence of these powers began to spread to the whole world, depending on the so-called. "zones of influence"(See Fig. 1). In fact, the above states became the engines of progress that later determined the course of world history.

As you know, politics and economics closely interact with each other. By the beginning of the 20th century, large commercial and industrial companies began to transform into giant companies, into transnational monopolies, which are becoming crowded in the conditions of the domestic market and which seek to move beyond not only the state borders of their country, but also beyond the continents. Such companies, with huge capitals, gradually became monopolists, dictating their terms to weaker countries and weaker governments, thereby being in many ways unofficial conductors of the foreign policy of their state. In fact, at the beginning of the 20th century, the big capitalist bourgeoisie merged with the highest bureaucratic state apparatus, which influenced the domestic and foreign policy of the state.

As mentioned above, the advanced countries of the world at the beginning of the 20th century had their own zones of influence. Such "zones" could be colonies, like those of Great Britain and France, scattered around the world, or economically dependent territories, like those of the United States in Latin America and Russia in Mongolia, Northeast China and Northern Iran. Only two of the leading powers increasingly gaining strength and power - Germany and Japan - did not have their own zones of influence and colonies. This was due to the fact that it was these two countries that embarked on the path of capitalist development late, “opened up” to the world late, and therefore were late for the division of the globe. The big national bourgeoisie of these states could not come to terms with this state of affairs, and therefore, increasing its military-technical potential day by day, it began to assert its rights to different parts of the world more and more loudly and more often, strove for its new redistribution, which irreversibly led to new, full-scale war.

Based on the emerging situation, the leading powers began to unite into military-political blocs and alliances (see Fig. 2). Of course, this practice existed as early as the end of the 19th century, but it has acquired special power now. In Europe, a rising Germany united in Triple Alliance with Austria-Hungary, Italy, and then with Turkey. In turn, in 1907 the military-political bloc finally took shape - Entente("consent"), which included the UK, France and Russia.

In the Far East, Japan's aggressive policy led to Russo-Japanese War 1904-1905, which Russia lost, and to the capture of the Korean Peninsula, as well as part of China, which jeopardized the territorial claims of European powers in the Asian region.

In the New World, the United States, which lived since 1820 in some isolation from the outside world, using the so-called. By the beginning of the century, the “Monroe Doctrine” began to penetrate more and more into the Eastern Hemisphere, playing if not the first, then one of the main roles, especially since the merging of big business and the political elite took place there at a rather accelerated pace.

Regional crises - the Anglo-Boer War of 1899-1902, the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905, economic conflicts in Asia and Africa, the Bosnian Crisis of 1908-1909, the two Balkan Wars of 1912-1913 and 1913. - were a kind of dress rehearsal for a worldwide armed conflict.

The economic and political contradictions of the leading powers of the world, the struggle for new markets and the intensified competition of large companies, the struggle for new zones of influence, the clash of interests in various regions of the world, the formation of military-political blocs - all this could not but lead to a major military conflict between these countries .

Bibliography

Shubin A.V. General history. Recent history. Grade 9: textbook. For general education institutions. - M.: Moscow textbooks, 2010.
Soroko-Tsyupa O.S., Soroko-Tsyupa A.O. General history. Recent history, 9th grade. - M.: Education, 2010.
Sergeev E.Yu. General history. Recent history. Grade 9 - M.: Education, 2011.

Homework

Read §1 of A.V. Shubin's textbook. and answer questions 2 and 3 on p. 15.
What were the reasons for the new redistribution of the world?
Were regional conflicts the forerunners of the First World War?

Internet portal Lib2.podelise.ru ().
Internet portal Likt590.ru ().
Internet portal Nado.znate.ru ().

We have already talked about the beginning of the Cold War, the post-war settlement in Europe and the German problem, conflicts and wars in Southeast Asia, the Middle East and Caribbean crises, etc. Based on these events, one can get an idea of who and how carried out international politics what role did political leaders and doctrines play in it, why did certain conflicts arise and how did they end, etc.

"Cold War" flares up

At the same time, it is important to consider the issues of international relations in the second half of the 20th century. in general, since this allows you to see the general picture of the world politics of this period: the alignment of forces and the nature of relations between individual states and groups of countries; changes in the international climate - from aggravation to "thaw" of relations, and vice versa; activities of international organizations and movements, etc.

So, let us recall the already well-known events in international life and try to rise to a higher level of their understanding.

By the mid-1950s, two blocs of states had formed in the international arena - "Eastern" and "Western". The divergence of the former allies in the anti-Hitler coalition - the USSR and the Western powers - began even when solving the problems of the post-war structure of Europe. Its foundations were determined by the results of the Yalta and Potsdam conferences (1945), as well as the peace treaties prepared at the Paris Peace Conference (1946) with Germany's former allies - Bulgaria, Hungary, Italy, Romania and Finland. The treaties were signed in February 1947. The fate of Germany became the "touchstone" of the settlement in Europe. The deepening contradictions between the USSR and the Western powers led to the split of Germany into two states with different social systems. By the end of the 1940s, the split of Europe took shape organizationally. In 1949, the NATO military-political bloc and the economic organization of the Eastern European states, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA), were created; in 1955, the Warsaw Pact Organization appeared.

The USA and the USSR, which led these military-political groups, possessed atomic weapons. In the 1950s, scientists and designers also created thermonuclear weapons, and later intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of delivering them anywhere in the world. The superpowers launched an arms race. The build-up of military power was accompanied by the formation of a public mood in the countries that opposed each other, which was based on the feeling of a constant external threat and intimidation by the strength of the enemy. In the USSR in the post-war years, the concept of the existence of two camps in Europe and the world as a whole was established. In the United States, President Truman's doctrine was based on the original thesis of the "communist danger." One of the ideologists of the Cold War, J. Dulles (then US Secretary of State), said: “In order to force a country to bear the burden associated with the maintenance of powerful armed forces, it is necessary to create an emotional atmosphere akin to the psychological atmosphere of wartime. We need to create an idea of the threat from the outside.”

The desire of the leading powers to strengthen their positions on the world stage led to the creation of military-political blocs in different regions.

Dates and events:

1949- the NATO bloc was created (USA, Great Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Portugal, Norway, Denmark, Iceland; in 1952 Greece and Turkey joined, in 1955 - Germany, in 1981 - Spain, in 1999 - Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic).
1951- the ANZUS block (Australia, New Zealand, USA) was formed.
1954- The SEATO block was created (USA, Great Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Thailand, Philippines).
1955- the Baghdad Pact was concluded (Great Britain, Turkey, Iraq, Pakistan, Iran). After the withdrawal of Iraq, the organization received the name CENTO. 1955 - The Warsaw Pact Organization was formed (USSR, Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, East Germany, Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia. Since 1962, Albania has ceased to participate in the activities of the Warsaw Pact).

The confrontation that began in Europe unfolded on a larger scale and in harsher forms in those regions of the world where peoples, liberated from colonial and semi-colonial dependence, embarked on the path of independent development. These are the countries of Southeast Asia and the Middle East. In conflicts and wars in Korea and Vietnam, one of the parties was supported by the USSR, China and the states of the "Eastern bloc", and the other - by the United States and their partners in military-political blocs.

Dates and events

Military events in the countries of East and Southeast Asia:

1950-1953- Korean War.
1946-1954- the war of the Vietnamese people against the French colonialists.
1960-1975- Civil War in South Vietnam.
1964-1973- U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.

The Middle East conflict that began in 1948 also attracted the attention of the great powers: the USSR supported the Arab countries, the United States sided with Israel.

In 1962, the clash of interests between the USSR and the United States in relation to Cuba led to the Cuban Missile Crisis, which brought the world to the brink of nuclear war.

Figures and facts

During the period from 1945 to 1985, over 12 million soldiers and officers took part in local wars and armed conflicts in the world. As a result, 20-22 million people, including civilians, died.
According to experts, with the funds spent on the production of one Tornado aircraft, it is possible to build a first-class hotel with 300 beds with a full range of services, conference rooms, a swimming pool, etc. The cost of military equipment compared to civilian spending: one fighter F-14 is equal to the cost of building 9 schools; one nuclear submarine "Trident" - the cost of education during the year 16 million children.

For peace and security

People of the generations that had gone through the war did not want its repetition. As the arms race unfolded and new military conflicts arose in different parts of the world, the desire to protect peace intensified. In 1949, the World Peace Congress was held in Paris and Prague. Most of the organizers of this movement were people of leftist convictions, communists. In an atmosphere of international confrontation, this caused a wary attitude towards them in the countries of the West. The states of the socialist bloc became the base of the movement.

In 1955, in Bandung (Indonesia), a conference of 29 countries of Asia and Africa was held, which adopted the Declaration of Promoting World Peace and Cooperation. In 1961, the liberated countries founded the Non-Aligned Movement, which included about 100 states.

The Bandung Declaration proposed the principles by which international relations in the modern world should be built:

respect for fundamental human rights, as well as the purposes and principles of the UN Charter;
respect for the territorial integrity of all countries;
recognition of the equality of all races and nations, large and small;
refraining from intervention and interference in the internal affairs of another state;
respect for the right of each country to individual or collective defense in accordance with the UN Charter;
refusal to use the collective defense agreement in the private interests of any of the great powers;
the refraining of any country from exerting pressure on other states;
refraining from acts or threats of aggression or the use of force against the territorial integrity, political independence of another country;
settlement of all international disputes by peaceful means, such as negotiation, conciliation, arbitration, or in court, as well as other peaceful means at the choice of countries in accordance with the UN Charter;
promotion of mutual interests and cooperation;
respect for justice and international obligations.

Organizations promoting peace and disarmament:

World Peace Council (established in 1950 at the World Peace Congress),
Pugwash movement (an international movement of scientists for peace and detente; founded in 1957 on the initiative of well-known scientists - A. Einstein, F. Joliot-Curie, B. Russell and others - a conference in the town of Pugwash in Canada),
Doctors of the World for the Prevention of Nuclear War (the movement was formed in 1981 on the initiative of Soviet and American doctors),
Asian Buddhist Peace Conference,
Paque Christi is an international Catholic peace movement,
Christian Peace Conference.

Only a part of the movements and organizations specially created to protect the peace and security of peoples is listed here. These tasks are also solved by other international organizations, such as the UN, as well as trade unions, women's, youth, religious organizations and committees.

In the 1970s, anti-war activity received a new development in Europe within the framework of the "green" movement. It originated as a movement of civil initiatives to protect the environment. Protecting nature and man from the threat of destruction, the "greens" joined the anti-nuclear struggle, participated in protests against the arms race, conflicts and wars.

Disarmament issues

In 1959 the USSR came up with a program of stage-by-stage general and complete disarmament. The importance of the problem of disarmament was recognized in the resolution of the UN General Assembly. An international Disarmament Committee was created. But the practical solution of the tasks set turned out to be a difficult task. One of the achievements along this path was the signing on August 5, 1963 in Moscow by the Soviet Union, the United States and Great Britain of the Treaty on the cessation of nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water. It has been called "the first crack in the permafrost of the Cold War." Later, more than 100 states joined the treaty.

In the summer of 1968 it was opened for signature, and in March 1970 the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons came into force. Signatory states possessing such weapons pledged not to transfer nuclear weapons or explosive devices to other countries, and states lacking such weapons promised not to accept or acquire them. By the early 1990s, more than 135 countries had signed the treaty.

In 1972, the signing of an international convention on the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of bacteriological (biological) weapons and toxins and their destruction began.

Turn towards détente in international tension

The detente of international tension began in the same place where this tension arose - in Europe. The starting point for detente was the settlement of relations around Germany. The next important step was a series of Soviet-American talks at the highest level, held in 1972-1974. They were headed by L. I. Brezhnev and R. Nixon. As a result of the negotiations, a document was adopted on the foundations of relations between the USSR and the USA. The two states also signed a Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (ABM) and an Interim Agreement on Certain Measures in the Field of Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (SALT-1). To come to these agreements, each of the parties had to make serious efforts, to overcome political and psychological barriers. This gave special significance to what had been achieved.

G. Kissinger(in those years the US Secretary of State, head of the State Department responsible for foreign policy, the first foreign policy adviser to the president of the country) later wrote in his memoirs: “It is important to recall what detente was and was not. Richard Nixon came to power with a well deserved reputation as an anti-communist throughout his life... Nixon never trusted the Soviet Union, he firmly believed in negotiating from a position of strength. In short, he was a classic Cold War warrior. Nevertheless, after four turbulent years in power, it was he who, so unlike a peacemaker in the conventional understanding of intellectuals, paradoxically, negotiated with the USSR for the first time in 25 years on such a wide range of issues relating to relations between the West and the East ... Paradox , however, not in essence, but outwardly. We did not regard the easing of tension as a concession to the USSR. We had our own reasons for this. We did not abandon the ideological struggle, but, no matter how difficult it was, we measured it with national interests.

Agreements on such important issues as the German problem and Soviet-American relations were a prerequisite for the development of all-European cooperation.

On July 30 - August 1, 1975, the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) was held in Helsinki. In the final act of the meeting, signed by the leaders of 33 European states, the United States and Canada, provisions were formulated on the principles of relations, the content and forms of cooperation between the CSCE participants. This is how the Helsinki process began, meetings of the heads of the CSCE member states began to be held regularly.

10 principles of interstate relations adopted in the Final Act of the CSCE (Helsinki, 1975):

sovereign equality and respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty, including the right to freely choose and develop their political, economic and cultural systems;
non-use of force or threat of force;
inviolability of borders;
territorial integrity of states;
peaceful settlement of disputes;
non-interference in internal affairs;
respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms;
equality and the right of peoples to control their own destiny;
cooperation between states;
conscientious fulfillment of obligations under international law.

In the second half of the 1970s, peace was established in Vietnam. The military-political blocs SEATO (1977) and CENTO (1979) ceased to exist. The detente was bearing fruit.

Old and new political thinking

At the turn of the 1970s and 1980s, the international situation escalated again. In response to the Soviet Union replacing medium-range nuclear missiles with more advanced ones, the United States and NATO decided to deploy American nuclear missiles on the territory of a number of Western European states aimed at the USSR and its allies in the ATS. A sharply negative reaction in many countries was caused by the entry of Soviet troops into Afghanistan. The conservative leaders who came to power in Western countries were in favor of tightening relations with the "Eastern bloc". In 1983, US President R. Reagan launched the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), which provided for the deployment of a powerful US missile defense with space-based elements. SDI was called the program of "space wars" not without reason. Since the late 1970s, the US military presence has increased significantly in many regions of the world. The objects of American intervention were the states of the Middle East and Central America.

Figures and facts

In 1982, military spending per capita was:

in the world as a whole -145 dollars;
in North America - $797,
Europe - $265,
Latin America -34 dollars,
Asia - $25
Africa - $22

Changes in the international climate began in the mid-1980s, after MS Gorbachev came to the leadership in the USSR. He proposed the concept of a new political thinking in international relations. Its creators believed that the problem of the survival of mankind is global in the modern world, and this should determine the nature of international relations.

From the book by M. S. Gorbachev "Perestroika and new thinking for our country and for the whole world", published in 1988 in the USSR and the USA:

“The way of thinking and acting based on the use of force in world politics has been shaped by centuries, even millennia. They took root as seemingly unshakable axioms. Now they have lost all reason. Clausewitz's classic formula, which for its time, that war is a continuation of politics, only by other means, is hopelessly outdated. She belongs in libraries. For the first time in history, it has become a vital need to base international policy on universal moral and ethical norms, to humanize and humanize interstate relations.
From the impossible military, nuclear resolution of international contradictions follows a new dialectic of strength and security. Security cannot now be ensured by military means - neither by the use of weapons, nor by intimidation, nor by the constant improvement of the "sword" and "shield" ... The only way to security is the path of political decisions, the path of disarmament. Genuine, equal security in our age is guaranteed by a progressively lower level of strategic balance, from which nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction must be completely excluded...
New political thinking requires the recognition of another simple axiom: security is indivisible. It can only be equal for all, or it will not exist at all.

Following the advancement of the theoretical concept, the Soviet leader managed to establish contacts with the leading leaders of the Western world. The meetings and talks at the highest level (M. S. Gorbachev, R. Reagan, George W. Bush) held in 1985-1991 played a pivotal role in Soviet-American relations. They ended with the signing of bilateral treaties on the elimination of intermediate and shorter range missiles (1987) and on the limitation and reduction of strategic offensive arms (START-1).

A significant range of international problems arose in Europe as a result of the events of the late 1980s and early 1990s. The focus was again on the German question. This time it was about the unification of the two states. The agreement on the final settlement of this issue was signed on September 12, 1990 in Moscow by representatives of the two German states, as well as Great Britain, the USSR, the USA and France. The USSR withdrew its troops and agreed to the entry of the united German state into NATO.

The proclamation of new Eastern European states was accompanied by an aggravation of national contradictions, in a number of cases - the emergence of interstate conflicts. The peace settlement in the Balkans became one of the main tasks of international diplomacy in the 1990s.

In the last decade of the XX - the beginning of the XXI century. many politicians and social movements, along with the discussion and solution of regional problems, turned to the ideas of an established new world order based on international security and cooperation. The following tasks were put forward:

creation of an ecologically, economically and socially responsible order, providing for the equality of all states supporting it;
protection of the international order from the ill-conceived, dangerous policies of individual states;
search for effective mechanisms to prevent international conflicts;
protection of vital assets and values for mankind: atmosphere, climate, soil, water resources of the Earth, its inhabitants, material and spiritual culture created by people.

References:
Aleksashkina L. N. / General History. XX - the beginning of the XXI century.

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

Several stages can be distinguished:

1. 1991 - 2000 - this stage can be defined as a period of crisis of the entire international system and a period of crisis in Russia. At that time, the idea of unipolarity led by the United States categorically dominated world politics, and Russia was perceived as a “former superpower”, as a “losing side” in the Cold War, some researchers even write about the possible collapse of the Russian Federation in the near future (for example, Z. Brzezinski ). As a result, during this period there was a certain dictatorship in relation to the actions of the Russian Federation by the world community.

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

After Yevgeny Primakov's resignation from the post of prime minister in 1999, the geostrategy he defined was basically continued - in fact, there was no other alternative to it and it corresponded to Russia's geopolitical ambitions. Thus, finally, Russia managed to formulate its own geostrategy, which is conceptually well-founded and quite practical. It is quite natural that the West did not accept it, since it was ambitious: Russia still intends to play the role of a world power and is not going to agree to the downgrading of its global status.

2. 2000-2008 - The beginning of the second stage was undoubtedly marked to a greater extent by the events of September 11, 2001, as a result of which the idea of unipolarity is actually collapsing in the world. In political and scientific circles, the United States is gradually beginning to talk about moving away from hegemonic politics and the need to establish US global leadership, supported by the closest associates from the developed world.

In addition, at the beginning of the 21st century, there is a change of political leaders in almost all leading countries. In Russia, a new president, V. Putin, comes to power, and the situation begins to change.

In Putin finally approves the idea of a multipolar world as a base in Russia's foreign policy strategy. In such a multipolar structure, Russia claims to be one of the main players, along with China, France, Germany, Brazil and India. However, the US does not want to give up its leadership. As a result, a real geopolitical war is played out, and the main battles are played out in the post-Soviet space (for example, “color revolutions”, gas conflicts, the problem of NATO expansion at the expense of a number of countries in the post-Soviet space, etc.).

The second stage is defined by some researchers as “post-American”: “We are living in the post-American period of world history. This is actually a multipolar world based on 8-10 pillars. They are not equally strong, but have enough autonomy. These are the USA, Western Europe, China, Russia, Japan, but also Iran and South America, where Brazil has a leading role. South Africa on the African continent and other pillars - centers of power. However, this is not a “world after the US”, much less without the US. It is a world where the rise and rise of other global centers of power is declining the relative importance of America's role, as has been observed in the global economy and trade over the past decades. A real “global political awakening” is taking place, as Z. Brzezinski writes in his latest book. This "global awakening" is determined by such multidirectional forces as economic success, national dignity, raising the level of education, information "armament", the historical memory of peoples. Hence, in particular, there is a rejection of the American version of world history.

3. 2008 - present - the third stage, first of all, was marked by the coming to power in Russia of a new president - D.A. Medvedev. In general, the foreign policy of the times of V. Putin was continued.

In addition, the events in Georgia in August 2008 played a key role in this phase:

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

secondly, there was a final alignment of forces at the interstate level: it became obvious that the new system has completely different foundations and Russia can play a key role here by developing some kind of global concept based on the idea of multipolarity.

“After 2008, Russia moved to a position of consistent criticism of the global activities of the United States, defending the prerogatives of the UN, the inviolability of sovereignty and the need to strengthen the regulatory framework in the field of security. The United States, on the contrary, shows disdain for the UN, contributing to the "interception" of a number of its functions by other organizations - NATO in the first place. American politicians put forward the idea of creating new international organizations according to the political and ideological principle - based on the conformity of their future members to democratic ideals. American diplomacy stimulates anti-Russian tendencies in the politics of Eastern and South-Eastern Europe and tries to create regional associations in the CIS without Russia's participation,” writes Russian researcher T. Shakleina.

Russia, together with the United States, is trying to form some kind of adequate model of Russian-American interaction "in the context of a weakening of the overall controllability (governance) of the world system." The model that existed before was adapted to take into account the interests of the United States, since Russia had been busy rebuilding its own forces for a long time and was largely dependent on relations with the United States.

Today, many people accuse Russia of being ambitious and intending to compete with the United States. The American researcher A. Cohen writes: “... Russia has noticeably tightened its international policy and, in achieving its goals, increasingly relies on force rather than on international law... Moscow has stepped up its anti-American policy and rhetoric and is ready to challenge US interests wherever and whenever possible, including the Far North.

Such statements form the current context of statements about Russia's participation in world politics. The desire of the Russian leadership to limit the dictates of the United States in all international affairs is obvious, but thanks to this, there is an increase in the competitiveness of the international environment. Nevertheless, "reducing the intensity of contradictions is possible if all countries, and not just Russia, realize the importance of mutually beneficial cooperation and mutual concessions" . It is necessary to develop a new global paradigm for the further development of the world community, based on the idea of multi-vector and polycentricity.

International relations arise with the appearance of the first states, with the establishment of contacts between the countries of the Near and Far East, Ancient Greece and Rome. In Europe, international relations are established in the Middle Ages simultaneously with the creation of centralized states.

The field of international relations has long been an object of research in various scientific disciplines: history (an important place is occupied by such concepts as "time" and "geographical place"), international law (concentrates on the study of forms and principles governing the system of international relations), philosophy , sociology, geography, economics, demography, military sciences, etc. Each of them highlights its own aspect and object of study. In political science, the study of international relations is one of the most important areas. Its purpose is to analyze the main parameters and criteria for defining international relations as a single system with its own system-forming characteristics, structural components and functions.

Starting with Plato and Aristotle, philosophers tried to create a system of concepts, categories and principles that would allow them to explore and analyze such a complex area of human communication as international relations.

I. Kant made a great contribution to the development of this problem. Condemning the predatory, predatory war, he advocated the observance of international treaties and agreements, non-interference in the internal affairs of the state. Kant put forward a project to establish "eternal peace" through an all-encompassing federation of independent states with equal rights, built according to the republican type.

In his opinion, the formation of such a cosmopolitan union is inevitable in the end. Enlightenment and goodwill of the rulers, as well as the economic, commercial needs of the nations, were to be the guarantee of this.

In our time, such prominent scientists as G. Kahn, R. Aron, G. Morgenthau and others have been and are engaged in the problems of international relations.

There are several theories of foreign policy.

1. Theory political realism in foreign policy was developed in the middle of the twentieth century. G. Morgenthau is a recognized authority in this direction.

International politics is understood by "realists" as a struggle of forces waged by a sovereign state in pursuit of superiority and power. At the same time, power is the relationship between two subjects of world politics, when one of them can influence the other (up to complete destruction). The “political determinism” of world processes is derived from the struggle for power.

Realists believe that if politics always expresses generally significant or group interests, then in international politics, mainly national interests are expressed.

Specifically, national interests are:

- "interests of national security" (defense of the country);

- "national economic interests" (maintaining ties with partners, building up export potential and foreign investment, protecting the domestic market);

The interests of maintaining world order (strengthening the international authority and positions of the state).

"International politics, like any other, - G. Morgenthau emphasizes, - is a struggle for power ... The goals of foreign policy should be determined in terms of national interest and supported by appropriate force."

2. Modernist theories created in opposition to the traditional theory of realism approach the consideration of the foreign policy of the state differently. If realists considered states as integral units that determine their course on the basis of national interests, then modernists consider the state as systems subject to various factors, influences from outside and inside (individual factors, role factors, etc.).

According to J. Rosenau, the central task of foreign policy is "the political (at the level of state power) strengthening of the capabilities of the national society to maintain constant control over its external adversary."

If, from a traditional point of view, the threat of force is the most effective means of foreign policy, then modernists focus on stimulating or hindering the development of processes of mutually beneficial cooperation.

3. Introduction to the scientific circulation of the term " geopolitics” is associated with the name of the Swedish scientist and politician R. Kjellen. He characterized geopolitics as "a science that considers the state as a geographical organism or phenomenon in space."

The central place in the determination of the international relations of a state in geopolitics is assigned to its geographical position. The meaning of geopolitics was seen in bringing to the fore the spatial, territorial principle.

The significance of geographical factors for the historical destinies of peoples is noted by almost all researchers of international politics.

The subject of geopolitics research is global and national interests, their correlations, priorities and methods of foreign policy of states as subjects of international relations and world politics, territorial and demographic imperatives, as well as the power potential of various countries.

The disadvantage of this and other models is the absolutization of one of the various components.

As you can see, most scientists interpret international relations as any practical relations between states and other participants in international life, i.e. it is any activity outside the states.

International relationships, therefore, is a system of political, economic, cultural, military, diplomatic and other relationships between states and peoples. In a narrower sense, international relations are reduced, first of all, to the sphere of political relations, which are called world politics.

Thus, world politics is the total activity of states on the world stage.

Human activity is based on interests and needs. Foreign policy is no exception in this respect. Its basis is national interests as an integral expression of the interests of all members of society. These interests are realized through the political system and foreign policy.

In political science, two levels of political interests are distinguished: the level of main or strategic interests and the level of specific or tactical interests. The first level covers interests in the field of foreign policy that are related to ensuring the security and integrity of the country as a certain socio-economic, political, national-historical and cultural community, protecting the economic and political independence of the country, asserting and strengthening its sovereignty in the system of international relations. And since interests at this level are connected with the very existence of the state, they are provided and protected by the state in the international arena by all means - diplomatic, economic, ideological, military.

The level of specific interests covers individual, partial interests of the state in the system of international relations. This, for example, may be the desire of the state to consolidate its influence in various international organizations, to take part in the resolution of regional conflicts, to develop cultural ties with other states, etc.

Foreign policy goals are determined on the basis of foreign policy interests. Among them the main ones are:

Ensuring the national security of the country;

Increasing the power of the state;

Growth of prestige and strengthening of the international position of the state.

Foreign policy performs three main functions: security, representation and information, negotiation and organizational. In fact, these functions of foreign policy are a specification of the external functions of the state: defense, diplomatic and cooperation.

The difference in interests and needs of modern states (and this is already almost 200 countries) inevitably leads to international disputes and conflicts. Therefore, this issue occupies an extremely important place in the problems of international relations.

The practice of international relations shows that disputes and conflicts can be resolved both by military means and by peaceful means. With regard to war, no special explanation is needed here, but peaceful means include:

A system of negotiations, mediation (but this form is not mandatory),

International arbitration (mandatory nature),

Activities of various non-governmental organizations.

The nature of the resolution of international disputes and conflicts can be classified in another way. It can have a legal aspect (i.e., the dispute is resolved with the help of international law) or political (and here such a thing as “force” arises).

In the system of international relations, the concept of "power" is considered in three aspects.

Military strength (i.e. military power). Sometimes it is enough just to "play with military muscles", i.e. send your warships to the shores of a certain power, and it will become much more accommodating.

Economic strength (level of economic development, financial stability). Arguing now between Ukraine and the United States is like entering the ring for athletes of different weight categories. (The budget of Ukraine is the budget of New York).

Considering “strength” in the broadest sense of the word, G. Morgenthau lists among the main components: the geographical position of the country, natural resources, industrial potential, population size and even national character, the strength of the national spirit, which is especially visibly manifested in war conditions (for example, in the USSR during World War II).

The system of interstate relations includes various forms of relations between states and interstate associations: coalitions of unions, intergovernmental organizations, etc. At the regional level they are represented, for example, by the League of Arab countries, at the global level by the UN. As a unique instrument of world politics, the United Nations, established in 1945, has made and is making a significant contribution to strengthening international peace and security. True, recently the UN has not been fully fulfilling its peacekeeping mission, especially in conditions when only one superpower, the United States, has appeared on the political scene. Taking advantage of its economic and military weight, this monster may not reckon with the UN at all.

Among other specialized agencies and subsidiary bodies of the UN, the most authoritative is the Commission on Education, Science and Culture - UNESCO (created in 1946). Of the international intergovernmental organizations, the International Monetary Fund should be singled out, and of the non-governmental associations and organizations of the international level, the well-known Club of Rome can be mentioned.

Although international relations originated in ancient times, throughout history they were essentially relations between states, and not between peoples. And only in our time, when peoples are becoming more and more visibly subjects of history, do these relations acquire their original meaning, i.e. become relations not only between states, but above all relations between peoples.

Current international relations are to a certain extent a product of the balance of power that developed after the Second World War (domination and subordination, cooperation and support, the presence of "double standards", etc.).

After the Second World War, the world developed a geopolitical division of the world community into three large groups of countries, which were designated respectively by numbers: the first, second and third world.

The first world consisted of the countries of Western Europe, North America and Australia. These are countries of democratic regime and market economy.

The second world consisted of the USSR, China, the countries of Eastern Europe and some countries of northeast Asia, as well as Cuba - the dominance of the communist political regime and a centrally planned economy. The confrontation between the first and second world entered world history under the name of the "cold war".

The third world included the developing countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America, which found themselves on the geopolitical periphery (mainly suppliers of raw materials and cheap labor).

This global geopolitical system was often called bipolar, bipolar, since it had two centers of power, two superpowers (USA and USSR), respectively, two military-political blocs: NATO and the Warsaw Pact (which, in addition to the USSR, included the countries of central Europe "socialist sample": Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria).

This confrontation and brinkmanship continued for several decades. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, a new alignment of forces emerged in the world: in fact, only one superpower remained - the United States and the NATO military-political bloc, which already includes not only the former members of the Warsaw Pact, but also the former republics of the Soviet Union (the Baltic states).

The third world is also undergoing significant changes. It singled out "new industrial countries" (South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, etc.), which, in terms of their economic level, approach the most developed countries. The less developed countries of the third world (some states of Central Africa and Asia) were called the "fourth world".

Thus, we can conclude that at the beginning of the XXI century the world geopolitical structure is significantly transformed. According to many experts, the world community is moving towards the creation of a multipolar world. This idea is actively supported by Russia, China and India. Among the future centers of power, geopoliticians name: the United States, a united Europe, as well as China and Japan, among such centers they name Russia and India (the demographic giant of the coming century).

The position of the only superpower with a huge economic and military potential could not but give rise to a desire in the United States to dictate its terms to other countries. This is how the bombings (including with depleted uranium) of Yugoslavia were carried out, even without UN sanction. That's what they did with Iraq.

It is also disturbing that world arms spending is on the rise again after 10 years of decline during and after the end of the Cold War. These expenditures far exceed aid to poor countries. Approximately 40% of the world's military spending comes from the United States.

In these geopolitical conditions, understanding of its national interests and spheres of influence, adequate to the realities of the modern world, is of great importance for determining Ukraine's foreign policy.

The main goals and priorities of Ukraine's foreign policy are formulated in the Act of Independence of Ukraine of August 24, 1991 and in the appeal of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine to parliamentarians and peoples of the world of December 5, 1991. The main vectors of modern Ukrainian foreign policy are also determined by the Constitution of Ukraine and a number of documents adopted by the Verkhovna Rada. In practice, this means a strategic partnership with Russia, cooperation with the countries of Central and Eastern Europe.

Over the past years, Ukraine has become an important subject of world politics; as an independent state, it is recognized by more than 150 countries. Ukraine is a member of many international, regional and other organizations. She takes part in the work of the UN, UNESCO, the Council of Europe, the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, the International Monetary Fund, etc.

The formation of a new independent state of Ukraine was marked by the establishment of a non-bloc status and a non-nuclear power. This opened wide opportunities for our country to establish friendly relations with all countries of the world, and first of all, of course, with its closest neighbors: the countries of Europe and those who formed the CIS.

Moreover, one foreign policy vector does not at all imply a deterioration in relations in another direction. Ukraine's entry into the European economic and political space does not contradict the strengthening of relations with Russia. Moreover, the development of this space will be the more successful, the more joint projects there will be, in which Ukraine, Russia, European countries, and those CIS countries that are now creating a single economic space will be involved.

Europe is interested in seeing a prosperous democratic Ukraine nearby, which also meets our interests. And for such a successful development, Ukraine has, along with other factors (fertile lands, hardworking people, intellectual potential, etc.) and geopolitical opportunities - on the main path between West and East.

2. Political global studies: main content