]. You can’t agree with everything there; it’s a very biting work, but it’s interesting and remarkable in its own way, if only because it’s written specifically on this topic. The book is small, first published in Paris, and has been republished here.
So, the process of creating an intelligentsia arose already in those wonderful times - in the 18th century. Oddly enough, it is connected with the decree on the freedom of the Russian nobility
The overview that I tried to give today, of course, does not exhaust the topic, but it gives an idea of how society has transformed. And if in early XVIII century we see reforms (building a fleet, building new government institutions, setting up a new army, introducing new principles of administration, etc.), then here we see a completely different situation. Everything settled down a little, everything got used to it, everything fell into some completely different places than Peter had planned, and a completely new situation was created. She, before to a certain extent, is the result of Peter’s reforms. But it is completely different from what Peter wanted to do.
Consequently, we must consider that Peter’s reforms undoubtedly contributed to the emergence of a fundamentally new situation in Russia (social, economic). But these reforms were not preserved by his successors the way he intended them. Were they deliberately altered or was there some kind of hidden process going on? Most likely it's the latter. It is unlikely that Vorontsov or Anna Ioannovna’s businessmen had any plan of action. I think that they, unable to collect the required amount of money for the treasury, faced with the problem of embezzlement, poorly understanding the problems of foreign policy, etc., tried all the time to somehow plug the holes, somehow maneuver between the offended guards, the fleeing peasantry and the pressure of foreign diplomats, while not forgetting their personal needs. This process was to a certain extent spontaneous. But it was a natural consequence of what was done in the first quarter of the 18th century.
7. Foreign policy situation
Another issue is the foreign policy situation. Here the changes have taken place extremely dramatically. They, perhaps, unlike all other Peter's innovations, retained both scale and continuity. In the 17th century, Russia did not pursue an active foreign policy. Russia was of interest to the British, French, and Austrians, who recognized a colossal market for raw materials here, felt an opportunity to profit from Russian timber, Russian leather, etc. Russia is in their internal problems didn't interfere.
As a result Northern War the situation has changed radically. Having expelled the Swedes from southern shores Baltic, Russia received the entire Baltic and took Sweden's place in European politics. And if formerly Europe, especially the North, was afraid of Sweden, now there was no question of any Swedish threat - everyone was afraid of Russia. Peter the Great, by marrying his nieces and daughters to German dukes, influenced German affairs; he was active in the south, interfering in Turkish policy. Consequently, Austria's problems were involved here. And if so, then the question arose about Poland, and for the first time the idea of dividing Poland and destroying it as a state was expressed not by Catherine or (30) by the Prussian king Frederick the Great - it dawned in the minds of Peter the Great’s businessmen during the life of this monarch.
Another thing is how this policy was implemented, how relations were built and with which specific countries. Story political unions Russia entered into is a completely different conversation. But the fact that Russia, now forever, became involved in European foreign policy and became a state exerting a colossal influence on European affairs was indeed an event, perhaps the most important one in the 18th century, if we bear in mind the foreign policy aspect of Russian history. Catherine was the rightful heir to this situation, and here she completely continued the line of Peter. Therefore, it is no coincidence that it was in foreign policy that the activities of this empress were expressed most clearly - this was the area where she achieved greatest success. Under Alexander I former chancellor Catherine's Prince Bezborodko, distinguished diplomat of its time (despite its unpleasant human qualities), said to the young diplomats of Alexander I: “I don’t know how it will be with you, but with us not a single cannon in Europe fired without our permission.” This is, of course, an exaggeration, but there is some truth in it. The result was the following: in domestic politics, especially in peasant question, what happened was not at all what Peter thought. Russia did not become a prosperous state; the budget deficit persisted. Social problems became perhaps even more acute. But foreign policy is in many ways a direct continuity that can be traced from Peter himself and beyond.
1. - Personality of Catherine II. 2. - Beginning of the reign of Catherine II. 3. - State activities of Catherine II. 4. - Secularization of church lands. 5. - “Order” of the Statutory Commission. 6. - Stacked commission . 7. - Provinces. 8. - Charters granted to the nobility and cities.
The reign of Empress Catherine II is a very broad and significant topic, so it seems convenient to me to divide it into two main parts: domestic and foreign policy. Don’t think that Catherine did one thing first, and then gradually moved on to another. Life forced her, like any person, to work in a variety of directions, but for the convenience of understanding her activities, we will first deal with the problems domestic policy. We will talk about the legislation of Catherine, about serfdom. Stories Pugachev revolt Let's touch on it very briefly. Everyone has heard something about this riot; the interpretation of this eerie page in our history over the past 70 years has been absolutely unambiguous. On the other hand, it is natural to fall into something completely opposite on the wave of the opposite movement. I refer you to a wonderful work - “The History of the Pugachev Rebellion” by A. S. Pushkin. If you seriously read this brilliant historical work (very small in volume), you will receive solid, solid and lasting information. It is not difficult to get it - in any collection of works by A. S. Pushkin this is his only historical work There is.
Pushkin learned a lot from Karamzin, had a real historical flair and that quality that we call a culture of research. Having been the first to touch upon the classified, as they would say now, data about the history of the Pugachev rebellion (he was allowed to do this by the highest order of Nicholas I), Pushkin toured the main places of the uprising, met with those who still remembered “Peter Fedorovich,” as Pugachev called himself, and wrote his "History". But in publishing it, he acted extremely delicately, intelligently and insightfully: in addition to his text, he published an appendix. Under Soviet rule, it was never published for one simple reason: the appendix is a list of people killed during the riot - nobles, clergy, peasants, women, old people, children, adults, soldiers, officers. This martyrology is a very accurate illustration of what happened and what Pushkin wrote his study about. At the same time, Pushkin is very scrupulous in terms of presenting facts, very accurate, and you can learn a lot from him. It must be said that official Soviet historiography, in principle, gave little. She clarified, perhaps, some individual details, but basically she exploited this topic more, resolving it from a class position. So we won’t talk about this anymore.
It was absolutely clear to Peter that Russia could only become a great power by reaching the sea. Arkhangelsk and Azov, located on the far outskirts of the state, could not have of decisive importance to develop relations with foreign countries.
In his “History of the Russian Army,” Kersnovsky notes that the conquest of the Black Sea coast for Peter I was not as urgent and paramount as the acquisition of a “window to Europe” on the Baltic Sea.
First of all, the fight with Turkey was unthinkable without allies. Allies in this struggle - Austria and Poland - refused to continue the Azov War. Austria was preoccupied with the issue of the newly opened Spanish inheritance; Poland did not see any benefits for itself in campaigns against Moldova.
But even in the event of victory over Turkey, the use of the Black Sea presented, according to Peter, many inconveniences.
The exits from it were in Turkish hands, and they ultimately led to the Mediterranean Sea, that is, to the countries Latin culture, to which, as well as to the Jesuits, Peter had a strong aversion.
He decided to “seek light” in the north, from the Dutch and the British, and for this it was necessary to take possession of the Baltic coast, that is, to withstand the fight with Sweden.
Peter identified allies for himself in this struggle - Denmark and Poland, who had their own scores to settle with Swedish king. Foreign policy Russia's formation was not easy, since Russia had virtually no experience in diplomacy. The relations between foreign states were completely unknown to the Russians.
For example, when sending the first ambassador to Turkey in 1701, Peter ordered him to find out “what European state Turks respect more, which people they love more.”
Foreigners also had almost no information about the number of troops and ships.
Only the Great Embassy of Peter, undertaken by him in 1697 - 1698, made it possible to significantly expand his horizons.
Even before that, Peter managed to glean some useful information from foreigners living in Russia.
According to Kersnovsky, friendship with the Dutch Breidt and Timmerman awakened Peter's sympathy for Holland and led to a prejudiced hostility towards the enemy of the Dutch, Louis XIV.
The victory of the Anglo-Dutch fleet over the French at Hoog in 1692 was celebrated in Russia with illuminations and cannon fire in the Preobrazhensky town. Thus, Franco-Russian relations deteriorated before they could begin.
Most characteristic feature European politics of that time was the rivalry between France and Austria, which began at the end of the fifteenth and beginning of the sixteenth centuries. Türkiye and Sweden sided with France in this fight.
By coincidence, it was these two allies Louis XIV were natural opponents of Russia. Russia's clash with them when resuming the process of its state development was inevitable, and this circumstance predetermined the nature of Franco-Russian relations for the entire 18th century.
The reason for the Russophobic policy of the Bourbons lies precisely in this. The sudden appearance of Russia on international arena, Peter’s resumption of the traditional great-power policy was an event for France in highest degree undesirable, which could weaken her allies and deprive her of support. After all, if Charles XII was not absorbed in the fight with Russia, he would definitely take part in the fight for spanish inheritance, thereby helping France out.
Therefore, according to Kersnovsky, throughout the entire 18th century, the Versailles office was the soul of intrigue against Russia.
The same “History of the Russian Army” states that Peter I did not get too close to any of the foreign powers, thanks to which under him Russian blood was not shed for other people’s interests. On August 18, 1700, peace was signed with Turkey. The very next day, August 19, Peter declared war on Sweden.
None of the great powers was strategically interested in the emergence of a new powerful state in the center of Europe, although no one at that time fully foresaw the threat of German militarism. At the same time, by the mid-1860s, thanks to Bismarck’s consistent diplomacy and the political disunity of the great powers (Russia’s withdrawal from international affairs after the Crimean War; the expansion of France under Napoleon III, which led to disagreements with England and Austria; Austria’s struggle with united Italy), a favorable external situation for the unification of Germany around Prussia.
- Among the events in Russia, preceding the beginning of unification, the Crimean War of 1854-56 should be noted. and the Polish Uprising of 1863. As a result of the defeat in the Crimean War, Russia's influence in Europe weakened, Russia's attitude towards its opponents England, France and especially Austria turned out to be spoiled for a long time. Prussia was the only great power that did not move against Russia, which, together with Prussian assistance in suppressing the Polish uprising of 1863, ensured a benevolent neutrality Russian Empire in Prussia's wars against its neighbors. Also, the Prussian King William I was the uncle of Tsar Alexander II, which also tilted Russia's position in favor of Prussia.
- The leading power in Europe at the time France got stuck in 1862-65. in the failed Mexican War. Its forces were diverted to capturing and strengthening colonies, where French interests constantly clashed with English ones. This was superimposed on the personal antipathy of Emperor Napoleon III towards England due to suspicions that Italian conspirators were using English territory to prepare attempts on his life. A rapprochement between France and Austria, and even more so an alliance, was impossible due to the unification of Italy, during which the French crushed Austrian army. Napoleon III underestimated the military strength of the modernized Prussian state and hoped only to win as an arbiter of the intra-German conflict.
- England, which owned a huge colonial empire, was not inclined to interfere without emergency in European affairs. Moreover, it was difficult for a naval power to fight without allies on the continent, and it was in strong Prussia that the ruling elite initially saw a counterweight French Empire. The British were greatly concerned about both the French Suez Canal project (concerns for India) and Napoleon III's desire to annex Belgium. In addition, a united Germany was not considered as a rival to England in colonial affairs, but could be beneficial trading partner for the sale of English products and colonial goods.
- Austria could not become a leader in the unification of Germany due to internal and external conflicts, although the idea of a Great German unification (that is, including Austria) had many supporters. Internal actors Austrian Empire, especially the Hungarians, did not at all want to further strengthen German dominance, for fear of losing their autonomy. And the Germans themselves from northern Germany did not strive for unity with a multinational state. The unification of Italy was also due to the Austrian possessions with the Italian-speaking population, which diverted the forces of the empire to the south.
It was absolutely clear to Peter that Russia could only become a great power by reaching the sea. Arkhangelsk and Azov, located on the distant outskirts of the state, could not be of decisive importance for the development of relations with foreign countries.
In his “History of the Russian Army,” Kersnovsky notes that the conquest of the Black Sea coast for Peter I was not as urgent and paramount as the acquisition of a “window to Europe” on the Baltic Sea.
First of all, the fight with Turkey was unthinkable without allies. Allies in this struggle - Austria and Poland - refused to continue the Azov War. Austria was preoccupied with the issue of the newly opened Spanish inheritance; Poland did not see any benefits for itself in campaigns against Moldova.
But even in the event of victory over Turkey, the use of the Black Sea presented, in Peter’s opinion, many inconveniences.
The exits from it were in Turkish hands, and they ultimately led to the Mediterranean Sea, that is, to the countries of Latin culture, for which, as well as for the Jesuits, Peter had a strong aversion.
He decided to “seek light” in the north, from the Dutch and the British, and for this it was necessary to take possession of the Baltic coast, that is, to withstand the fight with Sweden.
Peter identified himself as allies in this struggle - Denmark and Poland, who had their own scores to settle with the Swedish king. Russia's foreign policy was not easy to form, since Russia had virtually no experience in diplomacy. The relations between foreign states were completely unknown to the Russians.
For example, when sending the first ambassador to Turkey in 1701, Peter ordered him to find out “which European state the Turks respect more, which people they love more.”
The foreigners also had almost no information about the number of troops and ships.
Only the Great Embassy of Peter, undertaken by him in 1697 - 1698, made it possible to significantly expand his horizons.
Even before that, Peter managed to glean some useful information from foreigners living in Russia.
According to Kersnovsky, friendship with the Dutch Brandt and Timmerman aroused Peter's sympathy for Holland and led to a biased hostility towards the enemy of the Dutch, Louis XIV.
The victory of the Anglo-Dutch fleet over the French at Hoog in 1692 was celebrated in Russia with illuminations and cannon fire in the Preobrazhensky town. Thus, Franco-Russian relations deteriorated before they could begin.
The most characteristic feature of European politics at that time was the rivalry between France and Austria, which began at the end of the fifteenth and beginning of the sixteenth centuries. Türkiye and Sweden sided with France in this fight.
By coincidence, it was these two allies of Louis XIV who were the natural opponents of Russia. Russia’s collision with them when resuming the process of its state development was inevitable, and this circumstance predetermined the nature of Franco-Russian relations throughout the 18th century.
The reason for the Russophobic policy of the Bourbons lies precisely in this. The sudden appearance of Russia on the international stage and Peter's resumption of the traditional great-power policy was a highly undesirable event for France, which could weaken its allies and deprive it of support. After all, if Charles XII had not been absorbed in the struggle with Russia, he would certainly have taken part in the struggle for the Spanish inheritance, thereby helping out France.
Therefore, according to Kersnovsky, throughout the entire 18th century, the Versailles cabinet was the soul of intrigue against Russia.
In the same “History of the Russian Army” it is stated that Peter I did not get too close to any of the foreign powers, thanks to which under him Russian blood was not shed for other people’s interests. On August 18, 1700, peace was signed with Turkey. The very next day, August 19, Peter declared war on Sweden.
You can also find the information you are interested in in the scientific search engine Otvety.Online. Use the search form:
Role military force countries' foreign policies are undergoing significant changes. The nature of these changes is largely determined by the new balance of forces formed after the collapse of the USSR, the development of new technologies and forms of warfare, the disruption of the previously existing system of international relations and the evolution of the views of the leading military powers on the methods and forms of the use of force.
The economic interests of countries become dominant. If earlier it was still possible to talk about the prevalence of ideological interests in some states, then after the collapse of the USSR, the virtual disappearance of the socialist camp, China’s increasing transition to a market economy, the struggle for economic dividends became driving force politicians of almost all countries of the world. In conditions of limited world resources, increasing shortages as a result of population growth and global production, everything more countries builds its foreign policy on the principle “first we’ll eat yours, and then I’ll eat mine.” NATO has included ensuring the energy security of its members in its list of priorities.
Due to the fact that economic interests become the main ones in the policies of countries, the struggle for natural resources. A striking example is the Arctic, the resources of which are already claimed by countries that do not even have access to it. China, in particular, began to build navy, capable of operating in northern latitudes. In the West they are increasingly saying that the resources of some countries, including Russia, should belong not to them alone, but to the entire world community. Even forced redistribution of national wealth, including the use of military force, is allowed. NATO already in its founding documents (“Guaranteed access to the commons”, etc.) demands a “fair” distribution of the world’s resources.
The period of a “unipolar” world order with the undoubted military-political dominance of the United States is gradually ending. The United States will remain the world's most powerful player, but will increasingly be forced to rely on key allies and partners to carry out its policies.
Speaking about a multipolar world, it should be borne in mind that a multipolar system is less stable, has a large number degrees of freedom. The more world poles, the more conflicts and blood.
At the heart of modern US foreign policy is the desire to maintain global leadership. The main document that plays the role of defense doctrine is called “Maintaining the Global Leadership of the United States: Defense Priorities in the 21st Century.”
In an effort to ensure military superiority over any potential adversary, the United States is trying to avoid existing concept strategic deterrence in relations with Russia. A “lightning-fast global strike” command has been created. This is not a command responsible for quick single non-nuclear strikes on a global scale (using, for example, individual ICBMs in conventional configuration), as many claim and believe, but a command of first strike, strategic offensive operations using all nuclear and non-nuclear weapons. It is easy to verify this by turning not to declared political documents, but to specific doctrines and instructions for the US Armed Forces. The global missile defense system being created, according to internal documents of the US Armed Forces, should provide guaranteed defense only for the United States and its forces. The task of protecting allies and partners is present only in political declarative documents and was included there artificially, only to calm them down, and after they began to grumble.
In the near future, Washington will continue to look for common ground to interact with our country in resolving the Iranian and Korean problems. He is also driven to this by the need to contain China's claims to the role of a new superpower. Political leadership The United States would like to make the Russian Federation its partner in the fight against terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction; participant international coalitions carrying out peacekeeping and humanitarian operations; a reliable supplier of energy resources to international markets; employee in the implementation of large, financially demanding projects space programs(for example, a flight to Mars), which are ambiguously perceived by American society.
The United States, gradually leaving the European continent for the Asia-Pacific region, entrusts the care of Russia to the Europeans. This is openly discussed in the US Congress. Washington will continue to implement general guidance, A concrete steps The task of bringing the Russian Federation closer to the West on the basis of the latter’s values is entrusted to Europe. The purpose of this rapprochement is to maximize the binding Russian Federation to the West and turning it into a country that is not a potential enemy, as it is now classified as in official American documents. If we translate such a policy into simple language, then we should simply be strangled in our arms.
A similar approach was recently proclaimed by Washington as an official policy towards adversaries, providing for their maximum involvement in cooperation and thus re-education on US values. If a potential enemy resists, then more stringent measures are applied to him, up to and including military force.
The United States will continue to strengthen bilateral and multilateral military cooperation aimed at ensuring dominance in regions important to them (Asia-Pacific, Middle East, Central Asia).
It is likely that regional military blocs will be created with US participation in the Asia-Pacific region and the Persian Gulf. For example, the United States has already considered the possibility of forming a “mini-NATO” in the Asia-Pacific region on the basis of the US-Japan-South Korea-Australia alliance. In addition, other configurations were analyzed: “USA-Taiwan-Philippines”, “USA-Japan-South Korea-India”. The main focus of alliances in the Asia-Pacific region is to counter China.
A military bloc with the participation of monarchies and the United States may appear in the foreseeable future in the Persian Gulf. It is needed here to control the area of vital US interests. United air defense and missile defense systems of the Gulf countries and corresponding command structures are already being created.
The US-led NATO bloc is transforming from European to global. NATO expansion will continue, including with the involvement of non-European states, with the aim of increasing capabilities for global power projection, confronting the PRC and containing Russia. NATO's global partners already include Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Mongolia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and even Colombia.
The North Atlantic Alliance is still considered by the United States as the most important power institution for the implementation of foreign policy and military strategy United States. It was the United States that initiated the transformation of NATO, providing for a significant expansion geographical boundaries and functions of the block, in particular, ensuring energy security. Since the United States managed to seize the initiative in reforming NATO, the transformation of the latter is focused primarily on a significant increase in its military capabilities, and not on the “politicization” that the Europeans advocated and in which the United States saw the danger of the alliance losing its viability. As a result of the reform, NATO should turn into an organization that ensures, in the American understanding, security not only in Europe, but also in the world.
A NATO “triad” is beginning to form, repeating the American “triad” (offensive weapons - defensive weapons - supporting infrastructure), the creation of which was actually proclaimed in 2012 at the alliance summit in Chicago.
The common nuclear forces of the North Atlantic Alliance are being formed. There is actual unification nuclear forces France and Great Britain. Considering that British nuclear forces have long been practically united with the US strategic nuclear forces, collective NATO nuclear forces are being created, which the United States needs in the context of nuclear arms reductions and growing confrontation with China and Russia.
The United States, together with NATO member countries, will increase efforts to counter adversaries using “soft power,” that is, by internally destabilizing them, collapsing them, or establishing controlled regimes. A clear example is Ukraine, where Germany, with the tacit consent of the United States, begins to play a leading role, hiding behind the banner of the EU and trying to seriously strengthen its economic positions, and then, perhaps, political ones. As is known, Germany has already quietly carried out the economic occupation of almost all former socialist countries Europe (Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria, Baltic countries).
Despite the rather ambitious statements, the approach of the NATO leadership to interaction with Moscow will remain the same and will be in the nature of a compromise between the interests of the allies, who insist on using a strategy of “active deterrence” in relation to Russia, and the members of the bloc, who advocate deepening bilateral cooperation. In general, we can predict a model of “pragmatic partnership” between NATO and the Russian Federation, based not on common values, but on mutual interests.
For the foreseeable future, uncertainty will remain in the project of building a “united” Europe. The amorphous nature of the current EU as an independent global political player will continue. However, if previously the United States did not allow Europe to become independent in matters of defense, now, apparently, its position will change. In conditions of shifting center of gravity American politics In Asia, Washington will begin to increasingly “press” the Europeans in order to build up their military muscles. Thus, at the 2013 summit of the heads of state and government of the 28 EU member states, where defense issues were the main ones, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen even said that the United States may lose interest in participating in NATO if Europe does not increase its defense spending to 2% of GDP.
It is likely that in 5-7 years Sweden and Finland will join NATO. This will not happen under current governments. The majority of the population of both countries is against joining the Alliance, but the corresponding pressure will melt, gradually changing public opinion in favor of membership in the alliance.
By 2016, Finland will effectively cease to be a neutral state. Formally, without joining the North Atlantic Alliance, it will become a member of the NATO Response Force.
The role of the most active promoter of American interests in the Old World will continue to be played by Poland, which will be assisted by the Baltic countries and some other former socialist states in which the United States has a strong position.
To regulate the rapprochement between Russia and Western European countries Based on Western values, the promoters of American interests in Europe will continue to artificially increase tension on the continent. Within the framework of the Eastern Partnership program, of which Poland is the most active promoter, efforts will continue to withdraw such former Soviet republics, like Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova, from under the influence of Russia and the creation on their basis of a buffer zone, a kind of “wall” separating Russia from Western Europe.
Apparently, it is necessary to prepare for a serious destabilization of the situation in Moldova and its further rocking in Ukraine, and their rapprochement with NATO. Moldova has long been treated in the corresponding direction by a member of the alliance, Romania, and Ukraine has been agitated in unison by the United States, Germany, Poland and Great Britain. Ukraine and Moldova have declared a course towards rapprochement with Europe, but, as is known, in order to become a member of the EU, one must first become a member of NATO. All former socialist states were first forced to join NATO, and only then were allowed to become members of the EU. At one time, the EU intended to suspend the admission of new members, to which the NATO leadership reacted sharply negatively. Eventually, the EU's decision was reversed and the parallel expansion of NATO and the EU continued.
Moldova’s course towards the West will certainly lead to an aggravation of the situation around Transnistria, and possibly to the thawing of the conflict.
Military-political situation in the Caucasus region is becoming more and more complicated, which is connected, first of all, with the desire of the United States to remove Russia from the number of significant geopolitical players in the entire Caucasus region and to form a geostrategic corridor for direct output Western countries to the Caspian Sea region and Central Asia. Measures are being taken to draw Georgia and Azerbaijan into NATO and create a military springboard in the Caspian region for an attack on Iran. At the same time, the military-political leadership of Georgia and Azerbaijan expects help from Brussels in solving their territorial problems.
Probably, at the next NATO summit in London, another step will be taken towards admitting Georgia and Azerbaijan into the alliance. Apparently, the possibility of Georgia’s admission to this organization without Abkhazia and South Ossetia. And in the case of Azerbaijan, we can expect an aggravation of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh with the subsequent deployment of Western peacekeepers there.
The following option for resolving the conflict, which is being promoted by the United States and is already being discussed in Yerevan and Baku, is very likely. Türkiye opens the border with Armenia. Azerbaijan recognizes a certain sovereignty Nagorno-Karabakh and receives for this some areas that provide him with a transport corridor to Turkey, from the operation of which Armenia will also receive income. As a result, the United States will receive additional direct access through the Caucasus to the Caspian region and Central Asia, and the grounds for the presence of the Russian military base in Armenia and the question of its withdrawal is being raised.
It also cannot be ruled out that the forces currently fighting on the side of the opposition in Syria will not end up in Transcaucasia or the North Caucasus in the future.
The Georgian leadership does not intend to accept the loss of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and will continue to take steps to create conditions for their return. The main direction for achieving this goal is to use the “Involvement through cooperation” strategy, which primarily involves strengthening economic ties. Surely at some stage in the development of cooperation between Georgia and its former republics the question will arise about the further stay on the territory of the last Russian military bases.
In connection with the withdrawal of NATO troops from Afghanistan, including through Azerbaijan and Georgia, American military bases will apparently appear in these countries. For example, American generals talk about this openly.
As for Turkey, it is pursuing a policy leading to a split in the South Caucasus and the creation of a Turkey-Azerbaijan-Georgia axis in the region. The goal of this policy is to transform the emerging economic bloc of three states into a military-political union. It should be noted, however, that Russia, the USA and the EU, considering the Caucasus as a single region, do not support such a policy of Turkey.
There are agreements between Turkey and Georgia on the creation of joint military units for the protection of strategic communications, seaports, oil pipelines, railways, airports.
Turkey oversees the Armed Forces of Azerbaijan (military educational programs, operational work, conducting exercises up to the regiment level, reforming the Armed Forces in order to create a small professional army, re-establishing the Air Force and Navy, military intelligence). The United States objects to the actual subordination of the Azerbaijani Armed Forces to Turkey and the military-political integration of these countries on an exclusively bilateral basis.
As for Iran, the decline in tension around it, apparently, will not last long. In the event of the outbreak of large-scale military actions against Iran, Tehran will certainly use all its capabilities to launch retaliatory strikes, including on the territories from which the United States will operate.
And these could be the territories of Azerbaijan and Georgia.
The problem of the international military presence in the Caspian region has recently become relevant in the context of the struggle for its hydrocarbon resources. The Caspian Sea is included in the list of zones of “vital interests” of the United States, which, if certain foreign policy conditions unfavorable for the Russian Federation arise, may contribute to the emergence of NATO military forces in the region.
We should expect an increase in tension and destabilization of the situation in Central Asia. Here the interests of leading players such as Russia, the USA, and China intersect. India and Europe are showing interest in the region. Competition for resources and transport corridors is intensifying here. In addition, the time is approaching when the leaders of the Central Asian republics, due to their advanced age, will be forced to leave the stage, and they will be replaced by a new generation of politicians. In particular, a serious aggravation of the situation under this scenario is possible in Kazakhstan. New waves of economic crisis, as well as the partial withdrawal of NATO troops from Afghanistan in 2014, which will be followed by a spillover of tension beyond the borders of this country, can also accelerate regional destabilization.
The United States and its NATO allies are terrified that after leaving Afghanistan, the vacuum created there could be filled by China and spread its influence throughout the region. Western countries are eagerly seeking Russia's help in containing China.
The Treaty Organization needs to prepare for the aggravation of the situation in Central Asia. collective security(CSTO). At the same time potential danger for Russia is the reform of the armed forces of the CSTO and CIS member states in accordance with NATO standards, the training of military personnel of the former Soviet republics in the West, and the purchase of weapons and military equipment there. All this facilitates the process of the Commonwealth countries joining NATO, reduces Russian military exports and generally reduces Moscow’s influence in its neighboring countries.
Unfortunately, within the CSTO, common conceptual approaches to military development have not been developed. In particular, national military doctrines are not only not agreed upon among member states, but are often developed with the participation of specialists from countries belonging to other military-political blocs. The organization does not have an approved interstate language of communication, which significantly complicates the command and control of troops and slows down the development of cooperation. There is no understanding of common threats, which could become the driving force for the development of the CSTO.
Under these conditions, each of the states that are members of the organization seeks to independently determine its own hierarchy of threats and security challenges, which differ significantly from the threat systems of other member countries.
There is no clarity regarding the management of regional groupings of troops (forces) created within the CSTO. Thus, the Collective Rapid Reaction Force (CRRF), the decision to create which was made in February 2009, is subordinate exclusively to the national commands of their states, and only if necessary, the procedure for coordinating their use begins, which, in the context of ongoing hostilities, excludes the timeliness of the use of CRRF .
I would like the efforts made by the leadership of the CSTO to be realized more quickly in increasing the power of the organization.
Gradually, the Asia-Pacific region, rather than Europe, is becoming the “center of gravity” of world politics and economics. The “axis” of the new geopolitical game is becoming American-Chinese relations, which are already significantly influencing the nature of transatlantic relations. While the United States sees China as a threat, the Europeans see it largely as an additional huge market.
China will continue to emerge as the world's second military and economic power, which, according to some estimates, will become a major power by the 2030s. of the current century will displace the United States from its leading position.
If you look at the Asia-Pacific countries with which the United States is actively strengthening military cooperation (and these are Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, India), the conclusion suggests itself that Washington is building a containment belt around China.
India and Japan are likely to become leading players not only in the Asia-Pacific region, but also in the world. India is already showing rapid progress in almost all areas government activities, and Japan, relying on its existing global economic potential, is heading towards its so-called military and foreign policy “normalization”. The Ministry of Defense has been created, and the law banning the export of weapons is being revised. In the foreseeable future, the Constitution, which restrains military development in the country, will apparently be revised in Japan.
Potential hot spots in the Asia-Pacific region, where conflicts involving leading world powers may arise, are Korean Peninsula, Taiwan Strait, South China Sea, border between India and China, Strait of Malacca and the Indian Ocean hydrocarbon transportation route.
The influence of the United States in the Asia-Pacific region is decreasing, while China's is growing. Foreign policy Japan and South Korea are becoming increasingly independent. All countries in the region are trying to establish good neighborly relations with China, increasingly forgetting about the United States.
It is possible that in 5-10 years the situation in East Asia will be significantly destabilized if urgent measures are not taken to create a security system. However, the prospects for creating common system security here is illusory, since countries pursue too different goals.
China is apparently ready to turn the SCO into a military-political union, but without formalizing such a transformation, so as not to provoke a sharp response and aggravate the situation in the region. The PRC is not able to independently resist the United States and its allies and needs Russia’s help. To strengthen regional security, it is apparently necessary to create mechanisms for interaction between the SCO and the CSTO and form appropriate structures.
The main goal of Washington's strategy in East Asia is to maintain and strengthen the US-centric order. This strategy is based on allied relations, primarily with Japan and South Korea, to maintain forward-deployed forces in the region.
The rise of the PRC represents big risk for the regional interests of the United States, Japan, South Korea and some other countries. In American society, for example, there is no unity about what is best for the United States: a rich and peaceful China or a disintegrating and chaotic China.
Japan seeks to limit the influence of the United States and China in the region and is trying to create a Japan-centric community in East Asia by concluding economic agreements with Singapore, Malaysia and the Philippines, building an economic bloc based on the yen.
China is not yet interested in destroying the US-Japanese alliance, since, according to Beijing, having left American tutelage, Japan will sharply intensify military construction and expand the zone of its interests, which will seriously complicate the situation in the region.
Tokyo supports the peaceful reunification of the two Koreas and the improvement of relations between China and Taiwan. Possibility of Japan creating nuclear weapons will depend on further development situation in the region. Those military operations in which the Japanese Armed Forces are participating today are carried out within the framework of the fight against terrorism and are essentially peacekeeping, which does not require changing the Constitution of the country. However, in the foreseeable future, amendments to it will apparently be made, since the Japanese leadership intends to expand the possibilities of using the national armed forces abroad.
The level of Japanese-American interaction has approached the level of cooperation between the United States and its NATO allies.
South Korea believes that the United States is increasingly sacrificing its interests if necessary. One of these possible “sacrifices” is considered to be the withdrawal of American troops from the country, which is advocated by many in Washington. The departure of the Americans will increase tension in relations between Seoul and Tokyo, and it is possible that the Republic of Korea (ROK) will initiate its own game against Japan and China in order to survive. If at the same time the military presence of the United States remains in Japan, the Republic of Korea may become neutral or enter into an alliance with the PRC.
Many in South Korea believe that Beijing is opposing the unification of the two Koreas because it does not want unification nuclear power North with the economic power of the South and the emergence of a new powerful player at our side. Since the keys to solving the problem of the North Korean nuclear program, discussed within the framework of the six-party talks, are held by the United States and China, the meetings will be held more than once, because the main participants are not interested in their completion, since this will remove one of the important obstacles to the reunification of peoples.
The United States is trying to drag Russia into the process of further nuclear arms reductions, which, given NATO’s significant superiority in precision-guided and conventional weapons, will only increase the existing military imbalance.
The propaganda campaign of the international non-governmental organization Global Zero, calling for the elimination of all nuclear weapons, is gaining momentum. Everyone understands the unreality of such a situation in the foreseeable future, however, this initiative was officially supported by US President Barack Obama.
The United States and its NATO allies are seriously considering concluding a new treaty to limit conventional forces in Europe. main goal which is to make the Russian Armed Forces and the exercises they conduct “visible”. The allies are very concerned about the lack of information about the Russian Armed Forces.
The United States is actively expanding its military space activities. Currently, the American armed forces are already 90% dependent on space systems - Pentagon representatives report this. Operational instructions have already been issued on the use of force in space, from space on the ground, and from the ground towards space. Pass flight tests space systems, which may become space weapons. At the same time, the United States does not intend to conclude any agreements in the field of limiting military space activities.
What should Russia do? First of all, become stronger. In addition, pursue a policy of active neutrality, which implies equidistance from such centers of power as the United States and China, and the active promotion of initiatives that help strengthen global security.
