State national interests and mtp. The ratio of state and national interests. See what "National Interest" is in other dictionaries
The national interest is the perceived need of the nation for self-preservation, development and security. The spokesman and defender of the national interest in foreign practice, international politics is the state. The concepts of national and state interest are difficult to distinguish, since each nation, wrote M. Weber, is a community of feelings that can find its adequate expression only in own state and a nation can preserve its culture only with the support and protection of the state. The question of the legitimacy of using the concept of “national interest” and its content is the subject of discussion among representatives of various scientific areas in international relations. A detailed explanation on this issue was presented by one of the founders of the theory of political realism G. Morgenthau. The main provisions of this explanation are as follows: 1) “national interest” is an objective given. It is based on originality geographical location state and the resulting features of its economic, political and cultural development , on the one hand, and on the peculiarities of human nature, on the other. Therefore, the "national interest" is a stable basis for the international policy of the state. From G. Morgenthau's point of view, "national interest" contains two main elements: central (permanent) and secondary (changeable). The secondary element is nothing but the concrete form that the fundamental "national interest" takes in space and time. The central interest consists of three factors: the nature of the interest to be protected, the political environment in which the interest operates, and the rational necessity that limits the choice of ends and means; 2) “national interest” is quite amenable to rational understanding of statesmen. They must assume that good politics is rational politics based on a properly understood “national interest”. This presupposes an awareness of the fact that the distinguishing quality of politics, including international politics, is the struggle for power; 3) although the essence of politics is the desire to assert moral values through power, this does not mean that a politician can claim to know what is morally determined for the "state" in a particular situation. Moral politics proceeds from the need for agreement and compromises in the protection of the “national interests” of states in the international arena, from the desire to achieve “general interests”, which is incompatible with the rivalry of political ideologies; 4) "national interest" is fundamentally different from "public interest". If the first exists in an anarchic international environment, then the second is associated with a system of laws that regulate domestic politics. In other words, in contrast to the "public interest", the concept of "national interest" refers to the sphere of foreign policy of the state. Liberals question the very legitimacy of using the concept of "national interest" for purposes of analysis or as a criterion of foreign policy. Since it is not possible to define the concept of national interest from this point of view, in the end, the researchers suggested that the incentive motive for the actions of a participant in international relations is not interest, but “national identity”. Speaking of "national identity", they mean language and religion as the basis of national unity, cultural and historical values and national historical memory, etc. Theorists of the liberal-idealistic paradigm and practices inspired by their ideas are ready to accept the existence of national interests only on the condition that their content should be recognized as moral norms and global problems of our time. The protection of sovereignty and the related desire for power in the context of the growing interdependence of the world is increasingly losing its significance. Hence the statements that the main task facing today democratic states, not the protection of national interests, but concern for moral principles and human rights. The discussion in domestic science of the concept of "national interest" also revealed differences in its understanding. As in Western political science, the main dividing line in the discussion is no longer so much between "objectivists" and "subjectivists" as between supporters of realist and liberal-idealist approaches. Representatives of realism believe that "national interest" remains the basic category of all states of the world without exception, and it would be not only wrong, but also extremely dangerous to neglect it. According to liberals, in a democratic society, the national interest is formed as a kind of generalization of the interests of citizens, while an authoritarian and totalitarian society is characterized by a “statist” or “powerful” position, suggesting that the interests of the state are higher than the interests of the individual. However, domestic discussions about the national interest differ significantly from discussions in the Western academic community. The first difference concerns the interpretation of the term "national" as ethnic. In this regard, doubts are expressed about the applicability of the concept of “national interest” to multi-ethnic states in general and to Russia in particular. Based on this, some authors propose to speak not about national, but about state, national-state interests. The second significant difference that characterizes Russian scientific ideas about the content of the concept of "national interest" is that it, as a rule, is separated from the concept of "public interest". As a result, there is a need for such additional formulations as the external aspect of national interests, national interests in their foreign policy dimension. In connection with the discussion on the question of the legitimacy of using the concept of "national interest" and its content, some conclusions can be drawn. First. Attempts to "cancel" the meaning of "national interest" as an analytical tool and criterion of the state's foreign policy are too hasty and groundless. These attempts do not reflect the state of research on this issue in scientific literature in general: when criticizing the concept of "national interest", neither realists nor liberals, as a rule, are inclined to absolutely deny its usefulness. Second. Denying the significance of the “national interest”, Russian liberals go much further than Western scholars. In their opinion, the burden of statist and authoritarian traditions and the civil society that we still lack make this category not only inapplicable, but also dangerous for the development of democracy. Third. A strict understanding of "national interest" does not imply its association with "nationality", i.e. with an ethnic factor. Just like the category of the nation, the concept of "national interest" primarily reflects the unity political structures and civil society and is not limited to the ethnic component, which in this case is of secondary importance. Fourth. The identification of the “national interest” with the public interest is just as illegitimate as their opposition. Identification leads to the denial of the specifics of foreign policy, its relative independence and, ultimately, reduces it to the domestic policy of the state. Contraposition - to the absolutization of the discrepancy between the interests of the state and civil society. In a word, national interests are determined by the state, and foreign policy is used to achieve them. Usually in the scientific literature such types of national interests are distinguished as the main (radical, permanent); minor (secondary, temporary); objective; subjective; authentic; imaginary; matching; mutually exclusive; intersecting; disjoint. The traditional concept of a fundamental national-state interest is based on geographic, cultural, political and economic factors. The national-state interest includes the following main elements: military security, which provides for the protection of state sovereignty (national independence and integrity), the constitutional order and system of values; the well-being of the country and its population, implying economic prosperity and development; a secure and supportive international environment that allows for free contacts, exchanges and cooperation within the region and beyond. The emerging global financial system and a single information space, transnational production and the world trade network entail the erasure national boundaries and transformation of state sovereignty. The world has undergone dramatic changes, among which is the process of economization of politics, which continues to gain momentum. All this cannot but have a significant impact on the content of national interests. What is the nature of this influence? There is no consensus on this issue. Some believe that essentially nothing fundamentally new is happening. States remain key players international relations, and still, as in the time of Thucydides, they need to be able to survive and develop. The complication of the world, the emergence of new global challenges does not lead to solidarity and unity of mankind, but to the aggravation of interstate contradictions. The concepts of “vital interests”, “zones of influence”, “principles of state sovereignty” remain the central categories that reflect the essence of world politics in the era of globalization. Other researchers, on the contrary, speak of a complete blurring of the content of national interests, since "new subjects of world politics are already replacing states-nations." In their opinion, globalization leaves no room for national interests, replacing them with the interests of the world civil society. The main element of these interests is to ensure the rights and freedoms of the individual, still suppressed by the state, especially in countries with authoritarian political regimes. However, the reality is much more complex. Under the influence of globalization, state structures, like traditional national institutions, are indeed experiencing devastating upheavals. New actors undermine the traditional priorities of state sovereignty. Some scholars speak of "deterritorialization" or the "end of territories" to emphasize the depreciation of national state government. The crisis of the state is an objective reality. The state is under pressure "from above", "from below" and "from outside". From above, state sovereignty is being undermined by national organizations and institutions that are increasingly interfering with its prerogatives. In addition, there is also a voluntary restriction of their sovereignty by states. This is the so-called transfer of sovereignty, i.e. transfer of its part to the communitarian structures of the integrating states. The most illustrative example in this area is the European Union. "From below" state sovereignty is being eroded by intra-state structures and structures of civil society. IN developed countries ah in the sphere of politics, this is expressed in the phenomenon of "paradiplomacy", i.e. parallel diplomacy. There is an erosion of the national monopoly in the field of foreign policy. It manifests itself mainly at the functional, not the constitutional level. The objective reasons for the erosion of sovereignty “from below” are that the state is too small an entity in relation to the global economy, but it is too heavy a burden for the regional economy, and even more so for private enterprises and firms. “From the outside”, damage to sovereignty is caused by the activation of such non-governmental groups and organizations as Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, human rights and environmental associations. Even more, the state is losing its monopoly under the pressure of transnational corporations, firms, banks and enterprises. Thus, the dynamics of globalization really involves all states, ignoring their independence, types of political regimes and level of economic development. At the same time, the state is a nation, its sovereignty and its interests as an analytical concept and as a criterion for the behavior of the state on international arena continue to retain their value. But this does not mean that globalization does not bring any changes to national interests. On the contrary, the national interest changes significantly in its content and direction. There are new priorities associated with the need to use the advantages of globalization by adapting to the opportunities it opens up, on the one hand, and on the other hand, fighting against the damage it brings to the national interest.
After the collapse of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact in 1990, the world entered
into a new phase of global political development. If before this
moment, global security was based on the principle of nuclear
containment and balance of forces between the two military blocs, then after the dissolution
Warsaw Pact, the balance of power changed in favor of NATO.
Entry into its ranks of the Baltic states and some states
Eastern Europe in 2005 expanded the boundaries of the alliance to state
borders of Russia. In this case, Russia is actually alone
opposes the military might of NATO. The current situation requires
Russia to develop such a model of behavior in the international arena,
which would enable it to pursue an international policy
her national interests. However, it is not easy to make an ego.
The hopes of the political elite headed by B. Yeltsin for the Western
assistance during the reform period of the 90s of the XX century. led to rough
miscalculations in domestic and foreign policy, which significantly reduced
economic and military potential of the country. The fall of the economic
The technological and military power of Russia has significantly reduced its international authority, made its leadership accommodating, forced it to make numerous concessions and betray the national interests of the country. When solving acute international problems, the opinion of the Russian leadership is practically not taken into account, as, for example, when resolving the "Yugoslav crisis". Russia's international influence was marked only by its nuclear status. The Western countries did not have any desire to build partnership relations with Russia and integrate it into European and other international structures. The West did not want to write off the debts of the USSR from Russia, which became a heavy burden on the country and its citizens.
It is obvious that the preservation and development of Russia as an economic,
political and cultural-psychological integrity is possible
ensure only through the efforts of its people, and not at the expense of humanitarian,
financial and other assistance from Western countries. Only economic
prosperity, political stability, moral health
Russian society are able to guarantee its national
security and the return of high international prestige to it.
Russia's prestige in the international arena largely depends on the success of
economic, political and socio-cultural transformations
within the country, achieving harmony and peace among its peoples.
Awareness of this and the return of Russia to the number of global players
world politics was associated with the efforts of the presidential administration
V. Putin (1999^2008).
Russia's Foreign Policy Priorities
For the first time since the collapse of the USSR (1991), political leadership
Russia has formulated the basic principles for ensuring
national-state interests of the country in the new geopolitical
situations. This was done by the President of the Russian Federation V. Putin
2007 in Munich. Assessments and positions expressed by V. Putin
in the "Munich speech", formed the basis of modern foreign policy
doctrine of the Russian Federation, developed by the country's Foreign Ministry. President's speech
20 Political science was programmatic and symbolic: it marked the beginning of changes in relations between Russia and Western countries and influenced Russia's relations with the outside world.
It should be noted that the Munich Conference is a kind of
the equivalent of the World Economic Forum, only concentrating
focus on military-political issues and other
security issues. It is attended by representatives of political,
military and business elites of many countries.
Speaking at this meeting, V. Putin gave a general assessment of the situation
in the world and relations between Russia and Western countries, warning
what will he say "without undue politeness" and empty diplomatic
stamps. It turned out abruptly and at times unflattering.
First position: “We have come to the turning point when
should seriously consider the whole architecture of global security
". According to the President of Russia, the basic principle is being violated
international security, the meaning of which can be reduced
to the thesis: “the security of each is the security of all”. Moreover,
the end of the Cold War, despite the obviousness of such a recipe,
did not lead to the triumph of the named principle. On the contrary, as
V. Putin said that this time was marked by an attempt to create a unipolar
the world is "a world of one master, one sovereign". In his opinion,
“Today we are witnessing an unrestrained, hypertrophied
the use of force in international affairs, military force, force,
plunging the world into one conflict after another,
V. Putin, - We see an increasing disregard for the fundamental
principles of international law. Moreover, individual
norms, yes, in fact, almost the entire system of law of one state,
first of all, of course, the United States of America, stepping over
their national borders in all spheres - in the economy, in politics
and in the humanitarian sphere - and imposed on other states?
Who will like it?" According to V. Putin, the US attempt to impose
the model of a unipolar world has failed.
Second situation: growing problems in the field of international
security, first of all, it is stagnation in the field of disarmament and
the threat of the militarization of space. They have escalated in recent years.
and pose a direct threat to Russia's national security.
This threat came from the actions of the US and NATO. First of all,
it is the US intention to place the elements missile defense
in Poland and the Czech Republic. In addition, the crisis is
Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE). It happened
due to the refusal of NATO countries to ratify the adapted
version of this document. In this connection, V. Putin also recalled
that the United States is establishing forward bases in Bulgaria and Romania, and that NATO
moves its troops to the Russian borders, while the Treaty
binds the hands of Moscow. At the same time, V. Putin recalled that
in the 90s of the XX century. NATO countries gave assurances that they would not stir
NATO troops outside the territory of Germany.
Third position: the international landscape is now essential
is changing, primarily due to new centers of global growth.
These are primarily the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China).
Russia intends to play in international affairs an ever-increasing
role in pursuing an independent foreign policy. Having strengthened
its economy and its positions in the world, Russia is unlikely to agree,
to be treated like a poor relative from now on.
Fourth situation: V. Putin proposed to negotiate on
all international issues. In particular, he spoke out for
for stakeholders to come up with a joint solution
on the issue of missile defense and on the issue of ratification of the modified CFE Treaty.
The harsh assessments expressed by V. Putin caused a wide resonance.
The first reaction to his words was the question: will not lead
whether such a sharp controversy led to the resumption of the Cold War.
Such a fear, however, did not last long, since no one
discovered the termination of cooperation between Russia and the United States and others
Western countries on a number of important international issues.
It is significant that official representatives Washington and NATO
who have become the main object of criticism from V. Putin, do not consider
what's the point Russian President leads to the resumption of "cold
war." Moreover, in response to the calls of the President of the Russian Federation, the administration
Bush promised to "deepen" dialogue with Moscow. Indeed, activation
contacts between both countries on military-political issues
(Meetings have resumed according to the “2 + 2” formula with the participation of Defense Ministers
and heads of foreign affairs departments, several expert
meetings on missile defense) has not brought any new
agreements. Moreover, Moscow announced a moratorium on participation
The place of Russia in the system of modern international relations
The contemporary political landscape is increasingly
signs of multipolarity and asymmetry, in which relations
Russia since various countries will be built taking into account its national
interests, not to the detriment of them. It is possible to identify several
vectors of Russia's foreign policy, the implementation of which is connected
defending its national interests: Russian-American
relations, Russia and Europe, Russia and the CIS.
Russia and the USA: vectors of confrontation
The basic contradiction is connected with the role of Russia in the global energy sector.
From a strategic partnership, relations between Russia and
United States in the second half of the 2000s. entered a period of cooling.
2007 These changes were caused by objective shifts in the global
politics.
First, the fuse of the world struggle against international
terrorism compromised by the US war in Iraq.
Now peoples and governments themselves understand more clearly the contours
terrorist threat without downplaying or exaggerating it.
The terrorists were unable to gain access to weapons of mass destruction,
and in the matter of countering “conventional terrorism”, states have already learned something.
Secondly, the pole of confrontation has changed in the world. In the first
half a decade its most important element was the antagonism
USA with many Islamic countries. In the mid 1990s. imagination
most striking contradictions in NATO between the United
States on the one hand, and France and Germany,
with another. At this point, Russia, drifting cautiously from close partnership
with Washington (since 2001), contrived in a dispute between the United States
and mainland Western Europe call on less American
reproaches than Paris and Berlin. Then diplomacy second
Bush administration regrouped resources and, by weakening
force onslaught on some peripheral, although important directions
its policy (DPRK and South Asia), has focused
on the central ones. Relationships have always been one of them.
with NATO. Now relations with the region have risen on a par with them
Greater Middle East, which, according to American ideas,
extends in the north to Transcaucasia, the Black Sea and the Caspian.
The European direction of American policy at the level
practical actions began to transform even faster into a European
Caspian and European-Caucasian. Asianization of NATO
continues. Like three or four years ago, her main stimulus
the United States remains striving to strengthen its strategic position in the regions
alleged presence energy resources. At the same time, the main
the formal justification for the new "campaign to the East" is the "nuclear
nay threat of Iran”, in the assessment of which Moscow and Washington seriously
diverge.
Third, and most importantly, for the first time in a decade and a half
Russia began to emphatically oppose the habitually assertive
"Eastern strategy" of the United States own unusually offensive line. This new policy includes an unconditional opt-out
not only from solidarity actions with Washington during the 1990s.
20th century, but also from even the firmer course of “selective resistance” to American policy pursued by the Russian
diplomacy during most of V. Putin's administrations.
The nerve of the moment lies in the fact of "counter diplomatic escalation
» Russia and USA. This is not the case in Russian foreign policy.
it was a very long time ago.
Among the sources of Russian-American contradictions lies
disagreement of points of view on many problems: from disagreement
Americans with the orientation of political processes in Russia
to differences in positions on a number of issues of nuclear non-proliferation
weapons and policies for specific countries and situations.
Russia is annoyed that Washington is trying to teach it how to build
relationships with neighbors, including unpleasant or dangerous ones.
In addition, giving "advice" about Russia's relations with its neighbors,
The US itself is not at risk. For them, the Russian border -
"foggy distance", for Russia - a zone of key economic, political and military interests. The essence of the Russian-American
distrust - not in an exchange of barbs about the assessment of "farcical
regimes" in Georgia or Iran, and not even in the consolidation of the military presence
The United States is near the borders of Russia, although it, of course, cannot be considered
sign of friendliness. However, the basic contradiction between the US and
Russia has opposing views on the optimal role
Russia in the global energy sector. Moscow strives to the utmost
strengthen it as consistently as the United States tries to prevent
her in it. "Imitation of integrity" in disputes due to conflicts
in the "pipeline Transcaucasia" and the situation around Iran - derivatives
from Washington's intention to eliminate competitors from the region,
which is considered a possible alternative to the Middle East in
as a global energy store. Everything is exacerbated by the lack
between Russia and the United States a systematic dialogue on global
issues, especially military-political ones. Recreation
a mechanism for such a dialogue appears to be an urgent need,
based on the desire to keep Russian-American
relations in line with at least a "cool", but partnership. Aggravating
the circumstance is the forthcoming elections in 2008 in both countries.
Under these conditions, politicians and diplomats are not up to international
security. There is a threat to miss the moment.
American missile defense in Europe is unacceptable for Moscow
Another vector of disagreement between Russia and the United States is related to the deployment in Europe of the 3rd position area of the American strategic missile defense system. The sharpest disagreements on this issue arose in the spring of 2007, and they culminated on November 21, 2007, when the Russian Foreign Ministry received an official letter from the United States Department of State. It left no doubt: Washington
Rais and Robert Gates will under no circumstances give up
deployment of its strategic missile defense system in Eastern Europe. Even though
that the missile and nuclear threat from Iran could
and not be. At the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and at the General Staff
Russian Armed Forces publicly assessed American intentions
as a military technique aimed at weakening Russian strategic
nuclear deterrence forces. And although the US Congress has so far - until the end of negotiations with the governments of the Czech Republic and Poland, as well as an assessment of the effectiveness of the missile defense system in Europe by independent experts - has not given the green light to the deployment of anti-missile defense elements near the borders of the Russian Federation, Russian generals have already threatened Washington and its allies with adequate and asymmetric measures, including targeting operational-tactical missiles at the radar station at Brdy near Prague and the anti-missile base at Ustka on the Baltic coast. Moreover, Yury Valuevskiy, Chief of the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces, warned
Poles that Russia's strategic containment system can automatically respond to the launch of an American anti-missile. True, Russian generals for some reason do not remember the first two US strategic missile defense areas located in Alaska and
in California, where there are about forty anti-missiles, not ten,
as planned in Poland. Everything shows that behind the slogans about the strategic partnership of the two states, which were exchanged more than once
Presidents George W. Bush and Vladimir Putin, in fact, there is a strategic confrontation, the content of which was not only the anti-missile fence with which the United States surrounds Russia, but also the problems
Kosovo, Iran's nuclear power, development of democracy in our country
and freedom of the press. It is unlikely that these problems will disappear on their own.
Russia - European Union
The EU has found a replacement for the Constitution.
Reform Treaty. Operating Principles Document
The EU will enter into force after ratification by all states. Expected,
that this will happen in early 2009. However,
surprises.
Portugal ending its semi-annual presidency
in the European Union, kept her word - presented the promised treaty.
in a solemn atmosphere by the heads of state and government, and
also the leadership of the European Commission. The treaty replaced the draft constitution,
rejected in referendums in France and the Netherlands in 2005.
The reform agreement provides for the introduction of the post of president
European Council, which will represent the organization on
international arena. High Representative for the Common Foreign
politics and security policy will actually turn into a minister
foreign affairs. Also in the executive branch
there will be changes. From 2014, the number of European Commissioners will be equivalent to
two thirds of the EU member states. In the meantime, each of the 27 states
represented by a member of the European Commission.
The treaty enhances the role of the European Parliament. MPs can influence
on legislation in areas such as justice, security and
migration policy. Total seats in the European Parliament
will be reduced from 785 to 750. National parliaments will have the right
participate in legislative activities at EU level. They
will be able to make their own amendments to the text of bills. If a third of the national parliaments do not approve the draft law, it will be sent to
revision to the European Commission.
according to the formula of the so-called double majority. According to this
principle, a decision is considered adopted if it is voted for
representatives of 55% of the states in which at least 65% of the EU population lives. However, countries that fail to establish a blocking
minorities, will be able to postpone the decision of the issue and propose
continue negotiations. This system will come into effect in 2014.
The Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union provides for
common energy policy and implementation of a common strategy
fighting global warming, helping one
or several members in the event of terrorist attacks or natural
disasters.
In addition, the document contains an article on the possibility of exit
from the EU, the decision on which will be made following the results of common
negotiations.
European Policy Center analyst S. Hegman said,
that although the signed treaty contains some elements of a European
constitution, these two documents should not be compared.
In form, this is an ordinary intergovernmental agreement, and it is precisely
therefore, for example, it does not mention national symbols,
flag and anthem. According to the expert, the agreement does not refer to the transfer by the governments of the EU member states of part of the powers to the pan-European leadership, but to clarify the list of already transferred powers.
In other words, we are talking about improving the existing
systems. According to the analyst, the signing of the Lisbon Treaty
happened in a completely different environment compared to 2004,
when the draft European constitution was being considered. Euroskeptics became
far less. Particularly because the leadership has changed.
in Poland and Denmark.
The signed document has a very complex structure, and significant efforts are needed on the part of governments and other forces,
so that its meaning and content are correctly understood by the population.
All EU countries, with the exception of Ireland, intend to limit
parliamentary ratification. However, there may be surprises here as well.
In particular, experts do not undertake to predict how things will go in the UK.
Russia and NATO
The Russia-NATO Council was established in 2002, the corresponding treaty
signed by V. Putin and the leaders of 19 NATO countries in Rome. European
leaders said then that in relations between Moscow
and the alliance enters a qualitatively new stage, Russia "with one foot
joined NATO" and " cold war"Finally completed."
At that moment, the European SM And in unison repeated that Russia was ready
join the North Atlantic Alliance, and they quoted V. Putin,
who did not rule out such a possibility even before his election as president.
However, already in the fall of 2002, NATO, despite the objections of Russia,
welcomed seven new members. After that, despite
to ongoing contacts within the Russia-NATO Council,
relations between Moscow and the North Atlantic Alliance have become rapidly
get worse.
In December 2007, a regular meeting of the Council was held in Brussels
Russia - NATO. Representatives of the North Atlantic Alliance stated that relations with Russia had entered a critical phase,
and decided that next year the process of NATO expansion by
east will continue. The parties acknowledged that they could not agree
on any of the key international problems - from the placement
American missile defense system in Europe and Russia's withdrawal from the CFE Treaty before
status of Kosovo.
the next meeting of the Russia-NATO Council in Brussels, at which
Russia was represented by the head of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation S. Lavrov, preceded by
meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the Russian Federation of 26 countries - members of NATO. The main unpleasant
news for Moscow was the statement of the Secretary General
NATO Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, who confirmed that already in April 2008 at the summit in Bucharest a decision would be made to admit new members to the alliance. The most likely NATO recruits are Croatia, Albania, Macedonia and Georgia. At the same time, the Secretary General referred to the decisions of the 2006 NATO summit in Riga, where the leaders of NATO member countries confirmed that the doors of the alliance remain open to new members.
It is noteworthy that at the Riga NATO summit, for the first time ever,
time after the collapse of the USSR, the leaders of the alliance discussed the threats posed
from Moscow. However, the specific question of expanding
alliance was not on the agenda at that time, which was announced in December 2006
none other than Jaap de Hoop Scheffer himself. Having withstood a one-year
pause, NATO decided to force the admission of new members into its ranks.
Despite difficulties with Ukraine, NATO does not issue
out of sight and this country. A meeting was also held in Brussels yesterday
Commission Ukraine-NATO, following which Jaap de Hoop
Scheffer promised to make "the foundation of bilateral relations
even stronger." The news that NATO is preparing to make another
step towards the Russian borders, did not come as a surprise to Moscow.
“At the forthcoming NATO summit in Bucharest in April 2008
this issue will be one of the central ones, - confirmed the day before
in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs R F. - For us, this is an extremely sensitive moment, especially
in relation to the states of the post-Soviet space”. Noting
that "the process of NATO enlargement has nothing to do with
modernization of the alliance itself or to ensure security in Europe
”, on Smolenskaya Square called the planned expansion
alliance "a serious provoking factor, fraught with the appearance
new dividing lines.
The permanent representative of Russia spoke even more sharply
(since January 2008) in NATO D. Rogozin: “When NATO talks about threats
from the south, but at the same time expanding to the east, this indicates how
about the absolute misunderstanding of the situation, and about the insincerity of the leadership
alliance” According to him, “expecting to expand through
former Soviet republics, NATO hopes in vain that the reaction
Russia will not be too sharp,” as it happened before. "They are not
suspect that Russia is no longer what it used to be, ”significantly
noted Mr. Rogozin. “NATO members did not realize the full benefits of cooperation with Russia when it was ready for deeper integration. And now Russia has new ambitions, it has grown from
a shirt that NATO sewed for her,” said D. Rogozin.
In the meeting adopted at the end of the meeting of the heads of the Russian Foreign Ministries of the NATO countries (December
2007) in a joint statement states that “in ten
years after the signing of the first founding document
on cooperation between Russia and NATO, the partnership between them is entering a critical phase.” As a result of the meeting of the Council of Russia-
NATO both sides said they failed to bring their positions closer together.
Disagreements relate to the solution of all fundamental problems:
and the plan for the deployment of American missile defense in Europe, and the Treaty on
Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE), from which Russia
For example, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation S. Lavrov criticized
NATO's position on the regime of control over conventional
weapons in Europe. He said: “We do not understand individual actions
alliance, including near the borders of Russia. In particular,
modernization of the military infrastructure in the Baltics, creation of American
bases in Romania and Bulgaria. Steps like these make things worse.
around conventional arms control in Europe, which
has been at an impasse in recent years. Trying to convince partners
refuse to support the independence of Kosovo, S. Lavrov noted,
that the decision on the status of Kosovo would be a precedent for the unrecognized
republics in the post-Soviet space. According to him, "those
who conspires to play freely with international law, with the charter
The UN, with the Helsinki Final Act, must once again
think hard before stepping on a very slippery path, which
may be fraught with unpredictable consequences and not add
stability in Europe". Finally, the Russian minister stated,
what if NATO recognizes the US missile defense system being created in Europe
element of its missile defense, then Russia "will find it difficult
continue to cooperate within the framework of the Russia-NATO Council on this
subject."
Thus, the meeting in Brussels actually drew a line under
period of relations between Russia and NATO, which until the last
moment, despite disagreements, by inertia continued to call
allied. It is noteworthy that the warmest relations
Moscow and Brussels were precisely during the first presidential
V. Putin's term. However, during the second term to replace the "allied
relations” between Moscow and the North Atlantic Alliance came
clash of interests and fierce confrontation in all directions,
increasingly reminiscent of a new cold war.
NATO is concerned about the strengthening of Russia. For this reason, the Pentagon
leaves troops in Germany.
Contrary to the original plans, the US will not reduce in 2008 the number of its troops in Europe. Two American combat brigades
will remain in their places of deployment in Germany. About this USA the other day
notified the Brussels headquarters of NATO. Currently
four combat brigades of the American army are deployed in Germany,
numbering 43 thousand soldiers and officers. The two before them should have been
be returned to the US before the end of 2008. In this case, the number
Pentagon ground forces in Europe would drop to 24,000
Human. But now those plans are on hold.
Officially, the US Department of Defense justifies this by the unavailability of American cantonments intended
for the return of the brigades. However, the commander of the ground forces
USA in Europe D. McKiernan explained with military frankness
revision of the decision to reduce the number of American garrisons
in Germany "new strengthening of Russia". Politicians and military
NATO Express "Bitter Disappointment" at Increasing
Russian criticism of the Alliance, accused
in muscle building. According to the Brussels headquarters
apartment of the organization, behind the criticism of Moscow lies its desire
use its economic recovery to realize its own
foreign policy and military interests. In this regard, the Vienna
the publication sees in the refusal to reduce the number of American
troops in Europe "a definite sign that the military
The US is starting to prepare for a new confrontation with Russia.”
Despite preventive measures Pentagon, US Ambassador to
NATO V. Nuland does not lose optimism. She believes that achievement
agreements with Russia contentious issues perhaps: "We are standing in front of
threats and dangers that equally concern both Russia,
and us in the West. Therefore, we must find opportunities
cooperation that will benefit both parties.
Meanwhile, in Washington and Brussels, NATO authorities
Moscow's suspension of the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces
forces in Europe (CFE) is interpreted as another evidence of strengthening
Russia, requiring countermeasures. noteworthy signal
is the call of the leading Republican contender for the presidency
US R. Giuliani to start building up numbers
American armed forces in response to the strengthening of Russia's position.
According to him, Russian intentions “still cause
anxiety." Therefore, R. Giuliani convinced voters in the state of South
Carolina, USA "needs to become even stronger militarily
". In turn, the American analytical center Stratfor
foresees the mobilization of Western intelligence agencies. According to RIA
News, the employees of the center are experienced experts in the field
intelligence and business, and its services are used by hundreds of large firms,
government and military departments. In a recently published
in Washington, a Stratfor policy brief reads, in part:
“Abandoned CFE Treaty will force NATO to at least step up
their reconnaissance efforts in order to track the movements
Russian armed forces and receive information that the Russians would normally provide themselves under the mechanisms
Russia in the post-Soviet space
One of the main vectors of Russia's global policy is
maintaining influence on former republics USSR became independent
states after 1991. The initial organizational
legal form of "civilized divorce" of the former Soviet
republics after the collapse of the USSR became the Commonwealth of Independent
States (CIS), which included 11 states. However, as shown
practice, poorly integrated groupings, like the CIS, are ineffective. Decisions made at the CIS forums are not enforced.
In addition, the elites of the Commonwealth countries have different political
orientation. Some of them are weary of Russian influence and turn
their views on the United States (as Ukraine and Georgia do), others, on the contrary,
still focus on Russia (for example, Uzbekistan,
Kazakhstan, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan), and still others (Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan)
are trying to build a multi-vector foreign policy related to
with equal distance from the two poles of influence. post-soviet
space is attractive mainly for its significant
natural resources that are currently being fought over
different states. Taking into account this fact, Russia strives
more clearly declare their national-state interests,
using a new tactic: where political
arguments, it is quite possible to try to solve the problem with economic
methods, increase the attachment of the economies of the CIS countries to Russian
financial and stock markets.
RF and Belarus
Closest relationship (allied) due to geopolitical
positions are developing between Russia and Belarus, which
announced the construction of a union state. different ideas about
models of union (federal or confederate) caused controversy
between countries. This became an obstacle to the construction of a new
states. Under these conditions, Russia decided to change in relation to
Belarus tactics. Where political arguments fail,
it is quite possible to try to solve the problem not too big
money for Russia. If Belarus does not give up Russian
cheap money, which is extremely unlikely, the degree of integration of economies
two countries will inevitably increase, as well as the affection of Belarus
to the Russian financial and stock markets.
2007 to Moscow, was dumbfounded by the unexpected generosity of Russia.
The total amount of state loans promised to Belarus until 2008
to issue to Russia, increased from $1.5 billion to $3.5 billion, which is
7% of Belarusian budget expenditures in 2008. In addition, vice
prime minister A. Kudrin, who realized an attraction of unprecedented generosity,
promised Belarus loans in the domestic Russian market for 10 billion rubles.
rub. Belarus, apparently, will not resist, coming across the desire of Russia
Russian interstate loan to cover losses from the increase
prices for Russian oil and gas supplies in the amount of 1 billion rubles.
dollars, the promised money was allocated. Vice Prime Minister and Minister
Finance A. Kudrin and Belarusian Minister of Finance N. Korbut signed
agreement on the provision of a state loan to Belarus in the amount of
$1.5 billion. In addition, another loan was promised to Belarus
in 2008 in the amount of $ 2 billion, and it was proposed to place bonds
in the Russian market in the amount of 10 billion rubles. and if, these papers
receive demand, repeat this operation as needed.
As A. Kudrin explained, 1.5. Billion USD provided by Russia
for a period of 15 years at a rate of LIBOR + 0.75%. The agreement provides
and a 5-year grace period during which interest is paid
will not. At the current rate LIBOR + 5% A. Kudrin
estimated the cost of the loan for Belarus "about 6%". But right after
signing the agreement, the Deputy Prime Minister announced that Russia is ready
provide Belarus with another $2 billion loan in 2008
N. Korbut tried to object that this amount should be commercial
loan from Russia to Belarus. But Mr. A. Kudrin insisted
that the type of loan - a government loan or a commercial loan "will be studied." But before that, “one of the next steps is to place
public loan of Belarus in the Russian market”, issued another
the secret of Russian-Belarusian financial relations A. Kudrin.
According to him, “the Russian side has already received a request for registration
such a loan. After that, N. Korbut had to admit
that the volume of placement can be up to 10 billion rubles. in 2008 He
he only clarified that "this will not be a one-time placement, but in tranches."
Russia will provide the first $1.5 billion to Belarus with more than two
portions, but immediately. As N. Korbut explained, the country expects to receive
will be used to finance the Belarusian budget deficit,
which for 2008 is already set at 1.9% of GDP, or $1.2 billion.
A loan in the amount of $1.5 billion, according to A. Kudrin, will increase the gold and foreign exchange reserves of Belarus, and the budget of Belarus will receive
amount converted into Belarusian rubles. Where will they be directed
another 2 billion dollars, as well as money from Belarusian bonds, was not specified. For Belarus, we note that 3.5 billion dollars of loans in
2007-2008 - macroeconomically significant amounts. It's about 7%
expenses of the country's consolidated budget for 2008 (24.4 billion rubles)
dollars), and few smaller size social support fund (combines
part of the functions pension fund and social insurance systems) -
$5.6 billion in 2008
Even on the eve of V. Putin's visit, political scientists assumed that
Russia's loan to Belarus may be a price for the consent of A. Lukashenko
agree on the Russian version of the provisions on Union State.
However, now that the rates have increased by 2.5 times, the reason
they see it differently. Most likely, an agreement was reached with A. Lukashenko on
wide admission of Russia to the country's economy, and not only about
participation of Russian companies in the privatization of Belarusian ones, but also about
wider cooperation. Plus security agreements
because Belarus borders on Poland. Finally, perhaps
that this is a fee for a possible transition to the Russian ruble.
Russia and countries Central Asia
Of particular interest to Russia are the pantries of the countries of the Central
Asia, which make the region attractive for everyone.
As economic growth increases, the need for energy increases.
After the collapse of the S S S R, Central Asia was the region where Moscow
traditionally dominated. However, in recent years this region
is rapidly turning into a springboard for geopolitical struggle
between losing ground Russia, growing "draconian
» at the pace of China, habitually seeking its interests around
to the world of the United States and striving to reduce energy dependence
from Russia to Europe. The fiercest struggle thus unfolds
for oil and gas produced in Central Asia. All
of these players, other than the United States, are either negotiating or already
agreed to build in their direction from this region
oil and gas pipelines. The situation in the Central Asian
countries is ambiguous.
Kazakhstan. In 2007, Kazakhstan continued to move towards the set
goal is to enter the top 50 developed countries of the world. In 2007, according to
annual report The Global Competitiveness Report (on the global
competitiveness), he took 68th place out of 131. In addition, President Nursultan Nazarbayev's long-standing dream came true - in 2010
Kazakhstan will become the chairman of the OSCE. And this despite the criticism
international observers of the past parliamentary elections.
Recall that the pro-presidential "Nur Otan" received more than 88% of the vote
voters, and the rest could not overcome the 7% threshold.
Thus, the new legislative body (maji-lis) turned out to be
Russia in the mirror of political science
What are the national-state interests in modern Russia?
National-state interests are a set of common interests that have historically developed in a single state space.
national interests- these are the perceived needs of the state, determined by its economic and geopolitical relations, cultural and historical traditions, the need to ensure security, protect the population from external threats and internal unrest, environmental disasters, etc.
The term “national interest” itself came to Russian political science from Western English-language political literature, in which it has the meaning of “state interest”. National interests are understood primarily as the interests of the state, since Western countries are mono-ethnic states (not so much in the ethnic aspect, but in the social). The nation represents the dual unity of civil society and the state. Western political scientists have no particular difficulty in using such a concept as "national interest". By default, the national interest appears as a general interest that removes the contradiction between the interests of the state and civil society. Today it is not necessary to talk about significant differences in the fundamental values of civil society in industrialized countries. Citizens in it fully achieve rationally motivated mutual understanding, i.e. mutual understanding, free from anyone else's domination. It is understood that representatives of civil society, the independent public, have an impact on public policy. Internal tasks, private interests of citizens have priority in the formation of foreign policy. National interests in this interpretation include in this course such parameters as the acquisition of resources and the improvement of the material well-being of the population. “What is good for citizens is good for the state” - this is the principle of approach to national interests in countries with a developed civil society.
In domestic political science, differences of a fundamental order are revealed in the understanding of Russia's national interests.
In Russia, where civil society is at the beginning of its formation, where the transition from traditionalist structures to modern ones is taking place, there is no ideological and political consensus on the issue of national interests. The search for a civilizational identity continues, which causes a sharp and painful struggle between Westernizers-liberals (“Atlantists”) and Slavophiles-statesmen (“Eurasians”). The focus of this struggle is the question: “Who is the subject of national interest?” The former consider Russia a European country and single out the universal civilizational advantage of the West. Following in line with Western European policy is, in their opinion, in the national interest. They consider civil society to be a subject that determines the content of national interests. Based on this, the highest interest lies in carrying out economic reform which will make Russia richer and freer.
The other part of the political spectrum identifies Russia as a Eurasian country and sharply distances itself from the liberal understanding of national interests. For this part, national interests are determined, first of all, by the tasks of preserving and strengthening statehood. It is the state that has an undoubted priority in shaping the foreign policy course. Here “national interest” is equated with “state interest”. Ensuring state security is directly linked to the program of strengthening state regulation of the economy. The highest national interest for them is the revival of Russia and its sovereign greatness.
Russia has never existed as an ethnic state, and today it is not, however, the vast majority of the states of the post-Soviet space are focused on building ethnic states.
Russia has historically evolved as a union of ethnic groups, cultures, lands, the basis of which was a common goal, held together by national values and interests. The latter did not deny the diversity of ethnic interests of the subjects inhabiting it, did not fix the fact of the superiority of one nationality over another. On the contrary, circumstances gave rise to the formation of the political unity of ethnic groups. This is reflected in the fact that the general conditions with ethnic diversity, it predetermined as a national interest “the all-round strengthening of the state as an organizing principle, designed to ensure territorial integrity and external security and develop adequate forms of coexistence of various national-ethnic, religious and cultural communities. That is why the historically established national interests of Russia have become predominantly state interests” (S. Kortunov).
The national-state interests of Russia in their content and forms of manifestation were not identical at specific historical stages of its development. Guidelines, values, ideals, mechanisms and methods for achieving them were changing, which affected the essential understanding and implementation of the relationship between society, the state and the individual. Depending on the priority of an individual element of this triad, certain interests of social subjects were lined up and formed. For example, the prevalence of the role of the state led to a significant infringement of the actual public interests and, most importantly, the interests of individuals. State interests were placed above all other interests, which gave rise to the "imperial" character of Russia, its great power.
At present, in Russia, which has announced the transition to a state of law and civil society, the main interests of the individual, society and the state are unified system national interests. At the same time, the interests of the individual are declared the fundamental basis of public and state interests, which, in turn, are not something secondary, secondary. The concept of national security of the Russian Federation, approved by the Decree of the President of December 17, 1997, recorded that at the present stage the interests of the individual consist in the real provision of constitutional rights and freedoms, personal security, in improving the quality and standard of living, in physical, spiritual and intellectual development . The interests of society include the strengthening of democracy, the achievement and maintenance of social harmony, the increase in the creative activity of the population and the spiritual revival of Russia. The interests of the state consist in protecting the constitutional order, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia, in establishing political, economic and social stability, in the unconditional implementation of laws and maintaining law and order, in the development international cooperation based on partnership.
The concept of national security determines the national-state interests of Russia also in the field of economy, in the domestic political, international, defense and information spheres, in the social field, spiritual life and culture. For example, in the domestic political sphere, these interests consist in ensuring civil peace, national harmony, territorial integrity, the unity of the legal space, the stability of state power and its institutions, the rule of law, etc.
The most important tasks are the strengthening of Russian statehood, the improvement and development of federalism and oral self-government. The implementation of the constitutional principle of democracy requires ensuring the coordinated functioning and interaction of all state authorities, a rigid vertical of executive power and unity judicial system Russia. This is provided constitutional principle separation of powers, establishing a clearer functional distribution of powers between government institutions, strengthening the federal structure of Russia by improving its contractual relationship with the subjects of the Russian Federation within the framework of their constitutional status. The main goal of protecting Russian federalism is to prevent the transformation of federal relations into confederal ones.
Priority in foreign policy is given to ensuring security and integrity as a socio-economic, political, national-historical and cultural community, with the protection of the economic and political independence of the state, the development of Russia's relations with the leading states of the world, comprehensive cooperation and integration within the CIS, as well as full-fledged Russia's participation in world, European and Asian economic and political structures.
In general, the most important national-state interests of Russia include the following:
Completion of the process of formation of Russia within the current borders as a modern Russian state, i.e. beneficial for the Russian Federation "reorganization" of the post-Soviet space and the creation of a belt of friendly states around it;
Further reduction of the threat of a large-scale war, strengthening of strategic stability, consistent demilitarization of relations between Russia and NATO;
Conflict prevention, crisis management, dispute resolution in space former USSR;
Involvement in world economic relations on the most favorable terms for the national economy.
Russia's national interests is a set of balanced interests of the individual, society and the state in the economic, domestic political, social, international, informational, military, border, environmental and other spheres. They are long term And define the main goals, strategic and current tasks of the domestic and foreign policy of the state. national interests provided by government institutions exercising their functions, including in cooperation with public organizations operating on the basis of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the legislation of the Russian Federation.
Personal Interests consist in the realization of constitutional rights and freedoms, in ensuring personal security, in improving the quality and standard of living, in the physical, spiritual and intellectual development of man and citizen.
Society interests consist in the strengthening of democracy, in the creation of a legal, social state, in the achievement and maintenance of social harmony, in the spiritual renewal of Russia. The interests of the state consist in the inviolability of the constitutional order, the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia, in political, economic and social stability, in the unconditional provision of law and order, in the development of equal and mutually beneficial international cooperation.
Realization of Russia's national interests is possible only on the basis of sustainable economic development. Therefore, Russia's national interests in this area are key.
in the social sphere are to ensure high level the life of the people.
in the spiritual realm consist in the preservation and strengthening of the moral values of society, the traditions of patriotism and humanism, the cultural and scientific potential of the country.
V international sphere consist in ensuring sovereignty, strengthening the position of Russia as a great power - one of the influential centers of the multipolar world, in the development of equal and mutually beneficial relationship with all countries and integration associations, primarily with the member states of the Commonwealth of Independent States and traditional partners of Russia, in the universal observance of human rights and freedoms and the inadmissibility of applying double standards.
in the information field consist in observing the constitutional rights and freedoms of citizens in the field of obtaining information and using it, in the development of modern telecommunication technologies, in protecting state information resources from unauthorized access.
in the military sphere are to protect its independence, sovereignty, state and territorial integrity, to prevent military aggression against Russia and its allies, to provide conditions for the peaceful, democratic development of the state.
in the border area consist in creating political, legal, organizational and other conditions for ensuring reliable protection of the state border of the Russian Federation, in observing the procedure and rules established by the legislation of the Russian Federation for the implementation of economic and other types of activities in the border space of the Russian Federation.
in the environmental field are to preserve and improve the environment.
The most important components of Russia's national interests are protection individual, society and state from terrorism, including international, as well as from emergencies natural and man-made nature and their consequences, and war time- from the dangers arising during the conduct of hostilities or as a result of these actions. The state of the domestic economy:
1) imperfection of the system of organization of state power and civil society,
2) socio-political polarization Russian society and criminalization of public relations,
3) the growth of organized crime and the increase in the scale of terrorism,
4) aggravation of interethnic and complication of international relations
All these factors together create a wide range of internal and external threats to the national security of the country.
In the economic sphere, the threats are complex in nature and are primarily due to a significant reduction in the gross domestic product, a decrease in investment, innovation activity and scientific and technical potential, stagnation of the agricultural sector, imbalance banking system, the growth of public debt, the trend towards the predominance of fuel and raw materials and energy components in export deliveries, and food and consumer goods, including basic necessities, in import deliveries. The weakening of the scientific, technical and technological potential of the country, the reduction of research in strategically important areas of scientific and technological development, the outflow of specialists abroad and intellectual property threaten Russia with the loss of leading positions in the world, the degradation of high-tech industries, increased external technological dependence and undermining the defense capability of Russia.
Negative processes in the economy underlie the separatist aspirations of a number of constituent entities of the Russian Federation. This leads to increased political instability, weakening the common economic space of Russia and its most important components - production, technology and transport links, financial, banking, credit and tax systems.
National-state interests is a set of common interests that have historically developed in a single state space.
« National interests of the Russian Federation"- a set of internal and external needs of the state in ensuring the security and sustainable development of the individual, society and the state (according to the strategy of national security).
national interests- these are the perceived needs of the state-va, determined by its economic and geopolitical relations, cultural and historical traditions, the need to ensure security, protect the population from external. threats and internal unrest, environmental disasters, etc.
National interests yavl. absolute priority over any other interests inherent in both the state-woo, society, and the individual. National interests are divided into 3 categories according to their importance:
1. Permanent nat. interests. Essence: these include the protection of the physical, national, political, economic and cultural integrity of the state. Anything related to post. nat. interests under no circumstances can be the subject of bargaining, contracts, agreements. They are not discussed, their fate is to be defended by all possible forces.
2. Incoming or variable. These include national interests, cat. at this particular moment should be considered important for the state, and the cat. state considers as their nat. interests. They are divided into: 1) vital interests, everything that poses a serious threat to the state-va ( nation) at this particular moment. 2) Interests of survival, all that poses a threat to the existence of the state-va at this particular moment. 3) Important Interests, referring to them everything that represents the possibility of causing serious damage to the state.
These three types, as well as permanent interests, are not yavl. the subject of bargaining, agreement, negotiation.
3. Peripheral interests or local interests, only these nat. interests under certain conditions can become issues for discussion, agreement.
The very concept of national interests o. vulnerable, it is difficult to clearly define, especially in multinational states, when the interests of different nations that make up one state-va may not coincide and fall into confrontation. Do not formulate nat. interests is not possible.
T. arr., nat. interests and state interests are not the same thing, they often conflict. National interests are always relative, they are always formulated by national elites in any state. Elites are those groups, cat. accept management decisions at the state level, they are not always at the leadership.
National interests incl. into yourself:
1. National interests in general.
2. Interests are different. nations and ethnic groups living in the state-ve.
3. Interests of ruling elites.
4. International interests (international interests without-sti in the first place).
National interests basically objective, they reflect the aspirations of the citizens of the state to:
· Ensuring stable and stable. development of society, its institutions, raising the standard of living of the population;
· minimization of threats to personal and society. bezop-ti citizens, the system of values and institutions, on the cat. the beings of this society are founded.
These aspirations are embodied in the concept of national interest, the specific content of which is also determined by such object parameters as:
The geopolitical the state's position in the world. arena, the presence of allies or opponents, representing directly. threat;
Position in the system eq. rel-th, the degree of dependence on the external. markets, sources of raw materials, energy, etc.;
With the change in objective realities, the needs of society in the field of int. communication may change and the content of nat. interests.
Formation of national interests represents a gradual and long historical. pr-ss, cat. implemented in a complex interweaving of eq, social, nat-psychological. and other factors that determine the content and character of the national historical experience of a given people or country.
The concept of the national state. interest is formulated and can be implemented only as a general a doctrine shared and supported by the majority of society. In practice, full consensus is difficult to achieve for the following reasons:
1. In the assessment of the object. parameters and realities underlying the definition of nat. interests, there is inevitably an element of subjectivism, the burden of views and judgments of the past, ideological. motives that influence the mentality of even the most far-sighted leaders and theorists. Accordingly, the opposition to the ongoing course always has the opportunity to question the adequacy of the chosen doctrine to the objective content of national interests.
2. On watered. the choice of state-va is influenced by differences. pressure groups reflecting the differences objectively existing in most societies in determining the foreign policy priorities of the state, the content of its national interests.
Nationwide agreement turned out to be achievable, as a rule, only at extreme moments of development, for example, situations of the appearance of a common for all, visibly and clearly perceived threat.
The problem of conformity nat. interests, in the form in which they are defined by the state, the real interests of society, became especially acute in the 20th century. Contradictions m / d lens. the interests of society-va and the concept of nat. interests are in some cases the product of subjective miscalculations by governments. More often, we are talking about deeper causes related to the general orientation of the development of society and the ideology that dominates it.
National interests can be. implemented not unilateral, but jointly. actions of states that respect each other's interests, resolving their conflicts by peaceful means, with observance of the general, uniform for all legal norms. Instruments for protecting national-state interests more and more becoming international. org-ii, to which their participants voluntarily transfer the rights and powers arising from their sovereignty as subjects of interstate. relations.
1) To NGI medium-term type can be attributed to those interests that are important for the whole society and the state-va and the implementation of cat's requires their combined efforts for quite a long time. a period of time, for example, several decades (in modern conditions, this is the revival of the real sector of ek-ki), the implementation of which requires great efforts of the entire nation over a long period of time, often many decades.
2) Short time, or short time NGI stem from specific development problems or crisis situations, such as economic or financial crises. The interests of this type and scale of formulas are in official documents of representatives of power (president, government, parties). Usually, these documents indicate a specific period, during which it is supposed to solve one or another task derived from the NGI: 1 year, 2 years, 5 years, etc.
3) Since today's Russia has found itself in an unusually difficult situation of a general crisis, its NGI and, accordingly, the tasks facing it, have become much more complicated. For example, the constant interest and the resulting task of preserving the country were supplemented by the task preventing its decay and colonization.
4) No less acute is the problem of physical. preservation of the population and its reproduction.
5) deep reformation of sex, economics, legal and other systems of common life on the basis of democracy and in accordance with an ideology that does not contradict the mentality of the predominant part of the gr-n, their historical life experience .
6) solving the problem of mutual relations with external. the world in general and with the CIS countries in particular.
7) Revival of industrial and scientific and technical potentials. Without such a revival, Russia's international status and foreign policy options will steadily decline.
8) Maintaining the defense potential at the proper level in accordance with the principle of reasonable sufficiency. Such a potential is one of the most important components of the foundation of the external activity of any state. The poison-missile shield plays a special role in the current Russian situation.
9) development of science, education, culture, active participation in solving various global problems, maintaining a policy of openness to the outside world, etc.
10) further development and development of its vast territory, especially Siberia and the Far East
Priority in external politics is given to ensuring security and integrity as a social-economic, political, national-historical and cultural community, with the protection of the eco-coy and political independence of the state, the development of Russia's relations with the leading states of the world, all-round cooperation and integration within the CIS, as well as Russia's full participation in world, European and Asian economic and political structures.
In general, the most important national-state interests of Russia include the following:
· Completion of the process of Russia's formation within its current borders as a modern Russian state, i.e. profitable for the Russian Federation "reorganization" of the post-Soviet space and the creation of a belt of friendly states around it;
· further reduction of the threat of a large-scale war, strengthening of strategic stability, consistent demilitarization of relations between Russia and NATO;
· conflict prevention, crisis management, dispute resolution in the former Soviet Union;
· Involvement in world economic relations on the most favorable terms for the national economy.
The strategy of the national without-sti determines the national-state interests of Russia also in the field of economics, in the domestic political, international, defense and information spheres, in the social. area, spiritual life and culture.
47. The concept of "national security". Geopolitical and other factors of national security.
« National bez-st"- the state of security of the individual, society and the state from internal and external threats, which allows to ensure constitutional rights, freedoms, decent quality and level of life of citizens, sovereignty, territorial integrity and sustainable development of the Russian Federation, defense and statelessness va.
« The threat of national without-sti"- a direct or indirect possibility of causing damage to constitutional rights, freedoms, a decent quality and level of life of citizens, sovereignty and territorial integrity, sustainable development of the Russian Federation, defense and security of the state.
Legislative foundations to provide. safety yavl.: 1) the Constitution of the Russian Federation; 2) Federal Law "On Security" of December 28, 2010; 3) laws and legal acts of the Russian Federation (for example, the presidential decree "On the strategy of national security of the Russian Federation until 2020").
"System for ensuring national security" incl.: "forces for ensuring national security" - Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, other troops, military units and bodies, federal state bodies. authorities involved in providing nat. without state-va on the basis of the legislation of the Russian Federation; "Wed-va ensuring nat. safety" - technologies, technical, software, linguistic, legal, organizational tools, etc. used in the system for providing nat. without-sti for collecting, forming, processing, transmitting or receiving information about the state of nat. without-sti and measures to strengthen it.
The main principles of ensuring security are: 1) observance and protection of the rights and freedoms of man and citizen; 2) legality; 3) the consistency and complexity of the application of federal state bodies. authorities, government agencies authorities of the subjects of the Russian Federation, other state. bodies, bodies of local self-government of political, organizational, socio-economic, informational, legal and other measures to ensure security; 4) priority preventive measures in order to ensure safety; 5) interaction of federal state bodies. authorities, government agencies authorities of the subjects of the Russian Federation, other state. bodies with public associations, international organizations and citizens in order to ensure safety.
In the formation and implementation of policies to ensure nat. without-sti of the Russian Federation take part: the President of the Russian Federation; Federal Assembly RF; the government of the Russian Federation; Security Council of the Russian Federation; federal executive authorities; executive authorities of the subjects. General hands-in all structures of the system. security is carried out by the President of the Russian Federation. Coordinates the efforts of all structures of the system. security secretary of the Security Council.
National security includes:
· state security - a concept that characterizes the level of protection of the state from external and internal threats;
public safety - a concept expressed in the level of protection of the individual and society, mainly from internal threats of a generally dangerous nature;
· technogenic safety - the level of protection against technogenic threats;
Environmental safety and protection from threats natural Disasters;
· energy security;
information security;
Personal security.
Geopolitics is one of the most important components of the theory of nat. without-sti. Geopolitics is a certain approach to the justification of politics, arising from the territorial and spatial position of states.
Geopolitical factors are understood as a set of geographical parameters that determine the appropriate direction in the policy of states to ensure their vital interests. These include: the size of the territory, location, length of borders, climate, terrain, flora and fauna, minerals, quantity and quality of the population, its ethnic and confessional composition. Based on geographical parameters, priorities are determined in the field of nat. without-sti. The modern geopolitical map of the world is the following picture:
· the zone of tellurocracy is represented by the inland expanses of North-Eastern Eurasia;
· The zone of thalassocracy includes, first of all, the American continent, located in the basins of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans.
Russia is a giant continental country located in the center of Eurasia, with a tellurocratic orientation, a continental geopolitical axis, around which various civilizations are located, where tellucratic and thalassocratic forms are peculiarly intertwined.
As a result of the collapse of the USSR, the territory of Russia was reduced by 5.3 million km 2, the western borders shifted to the east, and the first and second echelons of defense in Europe were lost. Tendencies towards national-territorial disunity are intensifying in Russia: the southern regions of Russia economically gravitate towards the Black Sea region; The Far East is increasingly gravitating toward China; Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands - to the Japanese economic space; the geopolitical position of Russia is aggravated by the narrowing of access to seaports on the Baltic, Black and Caspian Seas; reducing the possibilities of Russian railway communication with foreign states and between regions within the country; exacerbation of the demographic situation. As a result of the changes that have taken place in the world, the geopolitical position of Russia has deteriorated significantly: the country returned to the borders of pre-Petrine times and was literally pushed deep into the Eurasian continent, which creates conditions for increased threats various kinds security:
· economic - due to the radical destabilization of economic ties, the collapse of transport arteries, the narrowing of access to the seas;
· military - due to the reduction of the strategic space, a decrease in the quality of human mobilization resources;
· informational, environmental, cultural - due to the violation of the geopolitical balance in favor of "Atlanticism".
The main threat to Russia is the possibility of being sidelined from world development. At the geopolitical level, Russia considers Atlantic America as an opponent, and not "coastal civilizations", hence the most important interest is the transformation of "coastal territories" into its allies and strategic penetration into these zones.
The geopolitical imperative is that Russia not only restore its influence in the regions of the Near Abroad and allied relations with Eastern Europe, but also to include the states of the continental West and East in the new Eurasian strategic bloc. Russia needs a quick transition to normal, sustainable and conflict-free development in the face of the growing assertiveness of the West, the United States and NATO on world military-political processes and on Russia itself.
In the current period, the main threats to Russia's security are:
· attempts of military-force pressure in the conditions of those or other international crises;
any actions, both from outside and inside the country, aimed at undermining the statehood and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation;
· global economic and information-technological lag of the Russian Federation from industrialized countries;
a decline in production
reduction of the production base;
the weakening of the economic independence of the country;
· assigning fuel and energy specialization to the Russian Federation and blocking access to world markets and advanced technologies;
regional separatism;
· international tensions and conflicts both within the country and on the periphery of the near abroad;
· unsettled status of the Russian-speaking population living on the territory of a number of newly independent states;
· organized crime, corruption and terrorism;
· armed conflicts of various caliber and intensity in the immediate vicinity of Russian borders;
proliferation of weapons mass destruction and means of its delivery;
violation of the integrity of the defense state borders RF;
further deterioration of the economic situation;
erosion of the nation's gene pool.
Geopolitical factors:
civilizational factor. Civilization - the term originated in con. 18th century, it was introduced into scientific circulation by Count Mirabeau, with his t.z. meant a society based on the principles of reason and justice. Engels introduces his gradation, the whole society has gone through 3 stages of development, stage 1 - savagery, 2 - barbarism, 3 - civilization. From his t.z. civilization is a society at a high level economic development and associated with the flourishing of commodity production, production is created not for consumption, but for sale. In the 20th century, the situation changed. Naib. developed concepts of Danilevsky, Weber, Spengler, Tonga. All these concepts link the concept of civilization with the concept of culture, and sometimes it is just a synonym. Spengler - civilization is the final stage of the development of culture, civilization is a dead culture. Characteristics according to Spengler: the development of industry, technology; degradation of literature and art, high degree urbanization, the emergence of huge cities, cosmopolitanism. Pitirim Sorokin - civilization - large cultural supersystems that have their own exclusive mentality (way of thinking, general spiritual mood of people, groups.). Toynbee developed a civilizational theory, no general development no, every the state is developing absolutely uncoordinated, no one goes through the stage of federalism capitalism, etc.
| Eastern civilization | Western |
| The concept of we, a selfish, collectivist civilization. | It is based on the concept of I, so it is very liberal in its basis. |
| public interest. | At the heart of the concept of state-in, as the implementer of personal interests. |
| Power stands above z-nom, it gives z-it, forms it for itself, power is from God, power is a gift from above. Injustice is subject to justice, justice is subject to law, and z-he is subject to power (Japanese proverb). | Relationship to law. Z-he stands above power, and power acts strictly in accordance with z-nom and, because of this, requires z-th substantiation. |
| The state seeks to subdue not only the affairs of a person, but also his soul, it requires worship and submission, tk. power from God. Leader is a given. | The subordination of a person to us of the state-va, but while maintaining their own individualism. |
| Emotional thinking. Sensory perception. | Thinking. Thinking is theoretical, rational, practical, always with a view of why it is needed. |
| There is no clear line, in good there is always something bad. | A clear division into good and evil. |
Religious factors. One of the keys. factors of geopolitics, because religion is the spiritual embodiment of the idea and character of the nation and state. Any religion performs many important functions. Head. f-tion of religion - reconciles with the inevitability of death. 3 world religions: Christianity is divided into 5 branches, Islam - 3 branches; Buddhism - 3 branches. There are a large number of national religions that are concentrated in one country, one ethnic group, for example, Judaism, Sikhism, Jainism, Shintoism, Confucianism, Taoism.
A special place is occupied by the national geopolitical factor. The state is eventually institutionalized, becomes an institution of politics, as a product of the development of the nation. It is interethnic contradictions that underlie the main conflicts of our time.
State. borders are not able to resolve contradictions, because state borders never coincide with the borders of the settlement of an ethnos. Any state is faced with the problems of nat. minorities. National problem collides 2 fundamental principles world politics, cat. lie at its basis, the right of the nation to self-determination, on the other hand, this basic right is opposed by the principle of sovereignty. There are no ethnically pure nations in the world.
Any nation has compatriots abroad, which inevitably leads to interethnic conflicts that lead to nat. liberation movements, clashes, then to clashes between states.
Interethnic wars and conflicts have neither spatial nor temporal localization. They have their own logic of development, they cannot be prevented, they will inevitably be repeated over and over again. It is impossible to prevent interethnic conflicts, but one can take into account their aspects and strive to block them, they must be considered and studied, but not go into an open stage.
Ethnic factors of geopolitics: 1. Non-coincidence of natural borders with the state. borders, ethnic groups are settled not because borders are drawn. 2. External state policy is never ethnically neutral. 3. Any state seeks to establish close ties with ethnically close groups in other states and, in turn, seeks by all means to prevent such ties of its nat. minorities. 4. Support in geopolitical rivalry on the nat. rival minorities. 5. State. borders do not protect against ethnic conflicts but provoke them. 6. Separatism is a tool with the help of a cat. you can hack the state-va from the inside, that tool, the cat. leads to a permanent redivision of the world.
If you look at geopolitics from the point of view. military factor, then geopolitics is a set of physical, social, moral and other resources of the state, which together constitute the potential that determines its strength and allows it to achieve its goals in the international arena. It can be said that concern for the strength of the state is the main concern of the state itself. The state must increase its strength. In geopolitics, this is the concept of power. Elements that make up the power of the state or lower it:
1. Geographic location, convenient for defense, attack or not.
2. The presence or absence of natural resources, minerals and energy sources.
3. Human resources.
4. Industrial potential, cat. able to provide for his country and its power.
5. Number of armed forces.
6. The quality of the armed forces.
7. National character.
8. National morality. How does the country's society relate to armed violence against opponents.
9. The quality of diplomacy, the higher it is, the less the army has to act.
10. The level of state leadership.
Economic factor geopolitics. In present moment military power gos-va continues to play important role, but economic power is beginning to play an increasingly important role. All states are striving for economic expansion and are waging a fierce struggle for control over the markets for raw materials. Attempts to control oil flows. The strength of the state-va largely depends on present. time from human resources that can be used for production, from the presence or absence of natural resources, cat. can contribute to the flourishing of ex-coy power, but not always the lack of resources yavl. a negative factor, an important role is played by the cost of delivery of raw materials, tk. it is impossible to work without raw materials; the cat occupies a state in the international. division of labor. Particular complexity in modern time for geopolitical analysis presents multidirectional, directly opposite tendencies in ek-ke. 1 trend - originated with the formation of capitalism in the 19th century. and cont. act now. Essence: uneven economic development (developed, developing, underdeveloped, etc.) - leads to contradictions between the states, leads to an intensification of the struggle for raw materials markets between the leading powers, leads to the division of the world into e.k. spheres of influence (for some period of time this led to a colonial division, but by the year 50-60 they fell apart, because political control turned out to be redundant), leads to periodic crises of overproduction, crises of overproduction lead to an intensification of the struggle for markets, which in perspective makes inevitable the clash of all against all. On the other hand, starting from the middle. 20th century there was a tendency for the world market to take shape, TNCs began to play an increasingly important role. I formally have headquarters in one country, but I have my own interests, factories in many countries, which connects them and gives a common. field of activity, production crises are beginning to acquire a global character. The crisis hits everyone without exception, it forces the creation of some supranational bodies, the purpose of which will be to manage the economy - the world bank, the world. bargain. organization, which in turn pushes the economy beyond the nat. borders.
Search
We may notify you of new articles,