The Cold War between the USSR and the USA - briefly and clearly. Topic 1.2: First conflicts and crises of the Cold War Major crises of the Cold War
Beginning of the Cold War. March 5, 1946, is formally considered the beginning of the Cold War, when Winston Churchill delivered his famous speech in Fulton (USA). In fact, the aggravation of relations between the allies began earlier, but by March 1946 it intensified due to the refusal of the USSR to withdraw the occupying troops from Iran. Churchill's speech outlined a new reality which the retired British leader, after assurances of deep respect and admiration for "the valiant Russian people and my wartime comrade Marshal Stalin", defined as follows:
… From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain stretches across the continent. On the other side of the imaginary line are all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. (…) The communist parties, which were very small in all the eastern states of Europe, seized power everywhere and gained unlimited totalitarian control. Police governments predominate almost everywhere, and so far, apart from Czechoslovakia, there is no true democracy anywhere. Turkey and Persia are also deeply alarmed and concerned about the demands that the Muscovite government is making of them. The Russians made an attempt in Berlin to create a quasi-communist party in their zone of occupation of Germany (...) If the Soviet government now tries to separately create a pro-communist Germany in its zone, this will cause serious new difficulties in the British and American zones and will divide the defeated Germans between the Soviets and the Western democratic states. (...) The facts are as follows: this, of course, is not the liberated Europe for which we fought. This is not what is needed for permanent peace.
Churchill urged not to repeat the mistakes of the 30s and consistently defend the values of freedom, democracy and "Christian civilization" against totalitarianism, for which it is necessary to ensure close unity and rallying of the Anglo-Saxon nations.
A week later, JV Stalin, in an interview with Pravda, put Churchill on a par with Hitler and stated that in his speech he called on the West to go to war with the USSR.
Military-political blocs opposing each other on the territory of Europe Over the years, the tension in the confrontation between the blocs has changed. Its most acute phase falls on the years of the Korean War, followed in 1956 by the events in Poland and Hungary; with the advent of the Khrushchev "thaw", however, the tension subsides, this was especially characteristic of the late 1950s, which culminated in Khrushchev's visit to the United States; the scandal with the American U-2 spy plane (1960) led to a new aggravation, the peak of which was the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962); under the influence of this crisis, detente sets in again, darkened, however, by the suppression of the Prague Spring.
Brezhnev, unlike Khrushchev, had no penchant for risky adventures outside the well-defined Soviet sphere of influence, nor for extravagant "peaceful" actions; The 1970s passed under the sign of the so-called "détente of international tension", the manifestations of which were the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (Helsinki) and the joint Soviet-American flight into space (the Soyuz-Apollo program); At the same time, treaties on the limitation of strategic arms were signed. This was largely determined by economic reasons, since the USSR already then began to experience an increasingly acute dependence on the purchase of consumer goods and food (for which foreign currency loans were required), while the West, during the years of the oil crisis caused by the Arab-Israeli confrontation, was extremely interested in the Soviet oil. In military terms, the basis of "detente" was the nuclear-missile parity of the blocs that had developed by that time.
A new aggravation came in 1979 in connection with the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which was perceived in the West as a violation of the geopolitical balance and the transition of the USSR to a policy of expansion. The escalation reached a peak in the spring of 1983, when a South Korean civilian airliner with almost three hundred people on board was shot down by Soviet air defense. It was then that US President Ronald Reagan used the popular expression "Evil Empire" in relation to the USSR. During this period, the United States deployed its nuclear missiles in Western Europe and began developing a space missile defense program (the so-called star wars»); both of these large-scale programs were extremely disturbing to the Soviet leadership, especially since the USSR, which maintained nuclear-missile parity with great difficulty and stress for the economy, did not have the means to adequately rebuff it in space.
With the coming to power of Mikhail Gorbachev, who proclaimed "socialist pluralism" and "the priority of universal human values over class values", the ideological confrontation quickly lost its sharpness. In the military-political sense, Gorbachev initially tried to pursue a policy in the spirit of the "détente" of the 1970s, proposing programs to limit weapons, but rather hard bargaining over the terms of the treaty (meeting in Reykjavik).
The history of the creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) - a military-political alliance
Already after the Yalta agreements, a situation developed in which the foreign policy of the victorious countries in the Second World War was more focused on the future post-war alignment of forces in Europe and the world, and not on the current situation. The result of this policy was the actual division of Europe into western and eastern territories, which were destined to become the basis for future bridgeheads of US and USSR influence. In 1947-1948. the so-called. the Marshall Plan, according to which huge amounts of money were to be invested by the United States in the European countries destroyed by the war. The Soviet government under the leadership of I.V. Stalin was not allowed to participate in the discussion of the plan in Paris in July 1947, the delegation of countries under the control of the USSR, although they had invitations. Thus, 17 countries that received assistance from the United States were integrated into a single political and economic space, which determined one of the prospects for rapprochement.
In March 1948, the Treaty of Brussels was concluded between Belgium, Great Britain, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and France, which later formed the basis of the Western European Union (WEU). The Brussels Treaty is considered to be the first step towards the formalization of the North Atlantic Alliance. At the same time, secret negotiations were held between the United States, Canada and Great Britain on the creation of a union of states based on common goals and an understanding of the prospects for joint development, different from the UN, which would be based on their civilizational unity. Expanded negotiations between European countries with the United States and Canada on the creation of a single union soon followed. All these international processes culminated in the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty on April 4, 1949, putting into effect a system of common defense of twelve countries. Among them: Belgium, Great Britain, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Canada, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, USA, France. The treaty was aimed at creating a common security system. The parties were obliged to collectively protect the one who would be attacked. The agreement between the countries finally entered into force on August 24, 1949 after ratification by the governments of the countries that acceded to the North Atlantic Treaty. An international organizational structure, which subordinated huge military forces in Europe and around the world.
Thus, in fact, since its foundation, NATO has been focused on countering the Soviet Union and, later, the countries participating in the Warsaw Pact (since 1955). Summing up the reasons for the emergence of NATO, first of all, it is worth mentioning economic, political, social, the desire to ensure joint economic and political security, awareness of potential threats and risks for Western civilization played a big role. At the heart of NATO, above all, is the desire to prepare for a new possible war, to protect oneself from its monstrous risks. However, it also determined the strategies of the military policy of the USSR and the countries of the Soviet bloc.
KOREAN WAR (1950-1953)
War between North Korea and China against South Korea and the United States of a number of American allies for control of the Korean Peninsula.
It began on June 25, 1950 with a surprise attack by North Korea (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) on South Korea (Republic of Korea). This attack was carried out with the consent and support of the Soviet Union. North Korean troops quickly advanced beyond the 38th parallel separating the two countries and captured the capital of South Korea, Seoul, three days later.
The UN Security Council recognized Pyongyang as an aggressor and called on all UN member states to provide assistance to South Korea. In addition to the United States, England, Turkey, Belgium, Greece, Colombia, India, the Philippines and Thailand sent their troops to Korea. The Soviet representative at that moment boycotted the meetings of the Security Council and was unable to use his veto.
After the North Koreans refused to withdraw their troops beyond the demarcation line, on July 1, two American divisions began to be transferred to Korea. One of them was defeated, and its commander was captured. The other was able, together with the South Korean troops, to retreat to the bridgehead created near the port of Busan. By the end of July, it was the only territory on the Korean Peninsula held by UN forces. General Douglas MacArthur, a hero of the war against Japan in the Pacific, was appointed their Supreme Commander. He developed a plan for a grandiose landing operation in the port of Incheon. If successful, the communications of the North Korean army, besieging the Pusan bridgehead, would have been cut.
On September 15, American and South Korean marines landed at Inchon. The American fleet dominated the sea, and aviation dominated the air, so the North Koreans could not interfere with the landing. Seoul was taken on September 28. The North Korean army fighting near Busan was partly captured and partly switched to guerrilla warfare in the mountains. On October 1, UN troops crossed the 38th parallel and on October 19 took the North Korean capital of Pyongyang. On the 27th, the Americans reached the Yalu River on the Korean-Chinese border.
In early January 1951, Chinese and North Korean forces recaptured Seoul, but at the end of the month, the American 8th Army launched a counteroffensive. By the end of March, the Chinese troops were driven back beyond the former demarcation line.
At this point, differences emerged in the American military-political leadership. MacArthur proposed to strike at Chinese territory
At the end of April, Chinese and North Korean troops launched a new offensive, but were driven back 40-50 km north of the 38th parallel. After that, on July 8, 1951, the first negotiations between the representatives of the warring parties began. The war, meanwhile, took on a positional character with extensive use of minefields and barbed wire fences. offensive operations now had purely tactical purposes. The numerical superiority of the Chinese was offset by the American superiority in firepower. Chinese troops advanced in thick chains right through the minefields, but their waves broke against the American and South Korean fortifications. Therefore, the losses of the "Chinese People's Volunteers" many times exceeded the losses of the enemy.
On July 27, 1953, a ceasefire agreement was finally reached in the town of Phanmynchzhon near the 38th parallel. Korea was divided along the 38th parallel into the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Republic of Korea. There is no peace treaty between North and South to this day.
The total losses of the parties in the Korean War were, according to some estimates, 2.5 million people. Of this number, approximately 1 million are the losses of the Chinese army. The North Korean army lost half as much - about half a million people. The armed forces of South Korea missed about a quarter of a million people. The loss of American troops amounted to 33 thousand killed and 2-3 times more wounded. The troops of other states that fought under the UN flag lost several thousand dead. At least 600 thousand people account for the dead and wounded civilians in North and South Korea.
Bibliography
Story. Russia and the world in the XX - early XXI century. Grade 11. Aleksashkina L.N. and others - M., 2010, 432s.
Story. Russia and the world. Grade 11. A basic level of. Volobuev O.V., Klokov V.A. and others - M., 2013, 352s.
Ilyina T.V. Art history. Domestic art: Textbook. - M., 2003, 324s.
Simkina N.N. Culture of Russia in the 20th century: Proc. allowance / N.N. Simkin. - Bryansk: BSTU, 2004.
Khutorsky V.Ya. Russian history. Soviet era (1917-1993). - M., 1995.
Introduction
2.1 Position of the USSR
2.2 US position
Conclusion
Introduction
The Cold War is a geopolitical, economic and ideological confrontation between blocs of countries led by the USSR and the United States, which determined the course of international relations throughout almost the entire second half of the 20th century. In its course, the Cold War had periods of détente and exacerbation; the last confrontational stage was the time from the late 1970s to the mid-1980s. It was at this time that the conflict between the parties reached its maximum and largely decided the outcome of the entire confrontation. These factors emphasize the relevance of this topic as a topic term paper, as well as the fact that discussions about the significance of the Cold War in general and this period in particular in the history of international relations continue. In addition, the relevance is emphasized by the proposition that the events of the final stage of the Cold War played a decisive role in many respects in the nature of modern international relations.
The object of the study is the relations between the USSR and the USA, the subject is the aggravation of the confrontation between these countries in the late 1970s - the first half of the 1980s.
To specify the period under study, the following chronological framework is indicated: the end of 1979 (the entry of Soviet troops into Afghanistan) - the beginning of 1985 (the coming to power in the USSR of MS Gorbachev).
Thus, the aim of this paper is to designate the influence of the aggravation of the Cold War in the late 1970s and early 1980s on international relations.
In accordance with the goal, the following tasks are set:
find out the reasons for the aggravation of the confrontation;
analyze the positions of the superpowers during this period of confrontation;
mark the points of conflict of powers.
america soviet arms race
For the study, methods such as comparative analysis and document analysis are used.
Sources for writing the work are represented by anthologies on the history of the USSR and Russia, where documents are given that characterize the country's domestic and foreign policy, its position in relation to international processes in the period under study; a collection of documents edited by A. Bogaturov provides information not only on the USSR, but also on other countries, including the United States, and also provides the texts of major international agreements. Analytics on this issue is represented by the works of A. Utkin, L. Mlechin, A. Shubin, A. Yakovlev and M. Kalashnikov. Despite the fact that all the works are devoted to one topic, the points of view of the authors differ significantly. So, for example, L. Mlechin and A. Utkin consider the Cold War to be the biggest mistake and catastrophe in history, while A. Shubin, A. Yakovlev and M. Kalashnikov (the most radical of all authors) consider it as a policy aimed at to the destruction of the Soviet state. It should be noted that all analytical works are rich in factual material. However, despite this development of the topic, these works do not consider the impact of the events of this period on international relations, focusing mainly on bilateral and domestic issues.
Reference books are also used for work. military history, and data from the specialized site "The Cold War - the great opposition of the superpowers"; these sources provide factual information on specific issues. In addition, informational and biographical Internet sites are used as reference material.
1. Reasons for the aggravation of the confrontation between the USSR and the USA
On the way to ascertaining the influence of the final stage of the Cold War on the international relations of the indicated period, the first necessary task is to ascertain the reasons for the aggravation of confrontation, which will help to better understand the further course of events.
As mentioned above, the beginning of the aggravation of the confrontation between the two superpowers is considered to be 1979, from the moment the units of the Soviet army entered the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan. However, this is definitely significant event objectively, it could not be the only reason for the intensification of confrontation, especially in view of the so-called "detente" that took place after the Caribbean crisis of 1962. As you know, "détente" helped to improve Soviet-American relations, led to the parties reaching a number of important agreements: the Agreement between the USSR and the USA on the Prevention of Nuclear War, the joint signing of the "Final Act" of the CSCE and the SALT-2 treaty. However, despite all these positive developments in the development of bilateral relations, a new surge of hostility could not be avoided, therefore, for it to start, there must have been complex, complex reasons, as well as contradictions that the policy of "détente" could not overcome. Arguing the impotence of the "détente" to end the confrontation, one can recall such examples as the different perceptions of the "Final Act" by the parties (the USSR perceived it as a guarantee of the integrity of its borders, the West - as a serious progress towards strengthening human rights) or the ratification of the SALT that did not take place -2.
So, the reasons could not arise momentarily, they were the result of past actions and mistakes of the superpowers, the persistence of mutual claims and stereotypes in the military-political and other dimensions.
1.1 Expansion of the Soviet sphere of influence
The policy of "détente" to a large extent helped to ease the tension of the confrontation between the USSR and the USA in Europe; the leaderships of the parties somewhat softened their positions in relation to each other, however, events on the periphery, in the so-called "third world", made fundamental changes in the emerging order.
Since 1961, a war that initially had a national liberation character began in the Portuguese colony of Angola; however, the rebel forces quickly divided into hostile factions and were already fighting among themselves for power after separating from the Portuguese Empire. This struggle escalated extremely after the country gained independence in 1975; a situation developed in which the right-wing organizations supported by the West - UNITA, FNLA and FLEC - united to fight the left-wing MPLA. The Soviet Union, seeing the prospect of obtaining a new ally in Africa and, as a result, strengthening its influence in the region, together with Cuba, actively began to provide assistance to the MPLA. In a short time, the USSR supplied many pieces of military equipment to Angola, sent military advisers, while Cuba landed a significant contingent of troops in Angola. All this contributed to the strengthening of the pro-Soviet regime in Luanda and allowed the USSR to get a new ally in the sphere of influence traditional for Western countries; in addition to Angola, another fragment of the Portuguese colonial empire that sided with the Soviet Union was Mozambique, which also received significant assistance.
Another event that undermined the status quo in Africa was the revolution in Ethiopia in 1974, which brought to power leaders aimed at building socialism. And in this case, the USSR took a course to support the new regime. The Soviet Union did not refuse to help Ethiopia when it had to make a choice: in 1977, the Ethiopian-Somali war broke out over the province of Ogaden; by the time it began, Somalia was also a rather important partner of the USSR in the region, but the latter leaned to take the side of Ethiopia. Relations with Somalia were severed, but Soviet-Ethiopian cooperation was strengthened. Ethiopia, largely thanks to Soviet and Cuban assistance, defeated Somalia, in exchange for which the USSR received strongholds for its naval forces in the Red Sea, which occupied a strategically important position in the military and trade routes of Western countries.
Thus, in a fairly short period of time, the Soviet Union received a number of allied states in Africa, significantly expanded its sphere of influence, which immediately caused a negative reaction from the West and, first of all, from the United States.
1.2 Military-political changes
Thus, the American government unofficially supported the pro-Chinese Pol Pot regime in Cambodia in its war with the pro-Soviet Vietnam, and US attempts were also made to improve relations with the PRC. These actions eventually failed, but their very existence speaks of attempts to compensate for the spheres of influence received by the USSR in Africa.
Another important "peripheral" event that influenced the further course of international relations was the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1978-1979. According to US President J. Carter, Iran was "an island of stability in a troubled region", an important stronghold of America for projecting its power and influence; after the revolution, Iran took an openly anti-American position, however, also an anti-Soviet one. The loss by the United States of an important and, in fact, the only (not counting the Arabian states) ally in the region was a serious blow to their prestige and potential in the Cold War, which also prompted the American administration to move to a tougher and more suspicious position in relation to the USSR .
Speaking of the American administration, one cannot ignore its role in the escalation of the conflict. Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter consistently departed from the prevailing by the beginning of the 70s. tendencies - to reduce the American military budget, and, on the contrary, actively engaged in building up power. The latest nuclear missile systems were urgently put into service, long-term plans were made to increase the nuclear submarine fleet, bombers carrying strategic bombs were re-equipped; an increase in the number of ground forces was even carried out, including in Europe. In addition, the doctrines of the possible conduct of hostilities were revised: under Ford, ballistic missiles were retargeted from civilian to military and industrial targets, which in the USSR was perceived as preparing the United States for a first strike; The Carter administration went further and increased the number of targets on the territory of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries from 25 to 40 thousand, simultaneously increasing the military budget. Naturally, such actions did not contribute to the strengthening of peaceful relations between the superpowers, but, on the contrary, nullified the results of "détente."
Against this background, which began in 1977 by order of L.I. Brezhnev retooling Soviet Union of its missile forces in the west of the country with the RSD-10 Pioneer systems (SS-20 according to NATO classification) had a huge effect. The European countries judged the appearance of these medium-range missiles as a direct threat to their territory, the US - to its military installations in Europe. It is fair to say that these actions of the Soviet leadership finally aggravated the situation and led to the adoption of the so-called "NATO double decision" on December 12, 1979. According to this decision, it was planned to deploy Tomahawk cruise missiles on the territory of Europe, and to replace Pershing medium-range missiles with modernized Pershing-2 missiles.
This turn of events had a negative impact on the position of the USSR: it, seeking to secure its territory with Pioneer missiles, found itself under attack from Pershings, whose flight time to Moscow was several times less than Soviet ballistic missiles to Washington. In this situation, the Soviet military authorities came to the conclusion that the Americans were preparing a war and made the appropriate decisions: to place additional missiles on the territory of the GDR and Czechoslovakia, and also to push strategic submarines as close as possible to the shores of the United States. The arms race has resumed on a massive scale.
1.3 Afghanistan and ideological tensions
Finally, the decisive event that finally returned Soviet-American relations to confrontation was the entry of Soviet troops into Afghanistan on December 27, 1979, already mentioned above. The Soviet government, which considered this action as helping a friendly regime, did not take into account all the consequences: in the United States, the intervention in Afghanistan was perceived as creating a springboard for the subsequent occupation of the Persian Gulf countries, which would lead to a huge energy shortage and the collapse of Western economies. Almost immediately after the start of the Soviet operation, President Carter put forward a new doctrine in which the position of the US government was clearly indicated: "... an attempt by an external force to seize control of the Persian Gulf will be considered an encroachment on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an attack will be repelled by all necessary means, including military force. In addition, economic sanctions were imposed on the USSR, an embargo was announced on trade in various goods, including high-tech products.
Along with these geopolitical contradictions, ideological conflicts continued to exist. Thus, for example, military assistance to the countries of Africa and Afghanistan in the USSR was regarded as support for friendly regimes with the aim of building socialism in these countries; in this way the ideas of socialist internationalism were put into practice. In the West, any assistance rendered by the Soviet Union to the country of the "third world" was perceived as communist expansion and the desire to become a world hegemon; all this was reflected in public opinion, which was not in favor of the USSR. Also, a significant ideological contradiction was observed in the field of human rights: Western politicians accused the Soviet leadership of infringing on the freedoms of citizens, imposed sanctions on trade with the Soviet Union and its allies, the abolition of which required indulgences from the Soviet leadership in humanitarian matters. Human rights thus became the subject of political blackmail. In general, it can be said that ideological contradictions were not the main ones, but they did not contribute to the mutual improvement of relations and added tension to bilateral relations.
Summing up the results of the section, it is possible to deduce the main reasons for the aggravation of the "cold war" in the late 1970s. First of all, such a reason is the growth of the military and geopolitical power of the USSR, the expansion of its sphere of influence and the simultaneous reduction of the US sphere of influence, which violated the established strategic balance of power in the world. In an effort to protect their own interests, both superpowers increased the level of armaments, introduced new doctrines, and thus continued to escalate the situation; any local conflict immediately began to take the form of a bilateral confrontation. Finally, ideological contradictions in the field of views on the development of the countries of the "third world" and human rights aggravated the already difficult relations between the USSR and the USA. Under the influence of the confrontation between the two leading powers, international relations in the world became more and more tense.
2. Positions of the superpowers during the period of escalation of confrontation
The new conditions in bilateral relations forced the parties to adapt to the current situation and build new or refine old strategic doctrines that expressed the positions of states during a period of heightened confrontation.
2.1 Position of the USSR
During the years of aggravated confrontation, the Soviet Union in its foreign policy activities actually continued to use a number of principles that had been formed back in the late 1960s. and in the West they received the name "Brezhnev Doctrine"; and although these principles were not officially enshrined in any document or act, they were the pillars of Soviet diplomacy.
The first of these was the principle of continuing the struggle against the imperialist countries, but this struggle was supposed to be peaceful, the main weapon of the USSR in it was to be the economy and ideology, and military power was to be the guarantor of security and the balance of power in the world. At the same time, the need for gradual mutual disarmament with the West and a retreat from the arms race was proclaimed; however, if the Western countries did not take the path of disarmament, then the possibility of a symmetrical growth of Soviet military power was envisaged (this point explained the deployment of additional weapons in Central Europe).
Another important aspect foreign policy was the preservation of allied relations with the countries of the socialist camp and the involvement in the orbit of its influence of the countries of the "third world", in order to avoid their transition to the camp of the enemy. This provision was put into practice by the policy of "socialist internationalism", with the help of which the Soviet Union justified its military and economic assistance to states in different parts light, as well as interference in the internal affairs of the countries participating in the Warsaw Pact, which was aimed at preserving the pro-Soviet regimes that existed in the countries of Central and Eastern Europe.
Foreign policy was also guided by the principle of the integrity and inviolability of the borders of the USSR, as well as the unacceptability of any power (primarily the United States) to conduct a dialogue with the Soviet Union from a position of strength. Cooperation, therefore, had to be carried out on equal rights and on the principles of parity, the same level of security.
Within the framework of these general provisions, the Soviet leadership also responded to the claims of the West after the start of the Soviet operation in Afghanistan and the general aggravation of relations. In particular, L. Brezhnev, in an interview with a correspondent for the Pravda newspaper, emphasized the peaceful aspirations of the USSR and accused the United States of the collapse of "détente", and also argued, in contrast to American statements, that the introduction of troops into the DRA was an exclusively humanitarian measure taken at the request of the government Afghanistan and in the name of establishing peace in this country and in no way aimed at expansion in the region. At the same time, the United States itself, according to Brezhnev, only contributed to the aggravation of the crisis by providing assistance to the Afghan rebels.
So, we can conclude that within the framework of the aggravation of the Cold War in 1979, the Soviet Union did not adopt any special military-political doctrines, but continued to use established principles and firmly denied any accusations of the West of hegemonic aspirations. The continuation of the old line of foreign policy can most likely be explained by the rather aged personnel of the highest authorities, who are accustomed to being guided in their actions by proven methods and with difficulty adapting to constantly changing conditions.
2.2 US position
We have already spoken about the "Carter Doctrine" and its provisions regarding relations with the USSR. With the coming to power in the US in 1981 of the Republicans headed by R. Reagan , America 's position became even more radical and aggressive .
First of all, it is worth noting the attitude of the new administration towards the Soviet Union - Reagan and his team publicly set the goal of changing political system in the USSR and victory in the geopolitical confrontation. This is a revealing statement that was a prelude to the formalization of a whole series of measures and principles that Reagan used to wage the Cold War.
Important in this series are the measures that Reagan considered necessary to carry out within the country: firstly, a powerful psychological treatment of the population, and secondly, the reform of the US economy (the so-called "Reaganomics"). The propaganda was aimed at deepening the image of the enemy in the person of the USSR in the minds of ordinary Americans and Europeans and creating the illusion of a strategic lag of the United States, which together pushed the population to support the Republican administration; the goal of "Reaganomics" was to free up additional funds to intensify the arms race.
It was precisely the involvement of the Soviet Union in a new arms race that was presented by the American government as the main means of struggle; at the same time, in the new race, the United States had to rely on new technologies, in many areas of which they were ahead of the USSR. Such actions were to be aimed at eliminating strategic parity and gaining advantages for the United States in the event of a nuclear war; on this basis, the concept of "beheading" was even approved, i.e. the United States being the first to launch an atomic strike with the aim of destroying the Soviet military and political leadership. Such a "beheading" essentially justified the hypothetical start of a global war by the United States and demonstrated their intentions to win in such a case.
Another important method of waging the Cold War, designed to weaken the Soviet Union, the Reagan administration chose the method of economic pressure. Paramount in it was the limitation of the receipt of new technologies by the USSR, especially those related to the extraction of hydrocarbon fuel; for the American ruling circles, this was especially important in connection with the construction of the Urengoy-Western Europe pipeline in the Soviet Union jointly with the Europeans. Its opening would mean a new flow of funds to the USSR, so Reagan considered it necessary to prevent the commissioning of this hydrocarbon artery as much as possible. The practice of technological disinformation and even the supply of defective spare parts for industrial products was also declared quite acceptable. Economic pressure could also be manifested by a ban on the sale of other products, such as grain or consumer goods.
In addition to all this, Reagan and his team firmly set the goal of conducting a dialogue with the USSR from a position of strength, moving away from the established principles of equality of the superpowers in international relations and to put the Soviet Union in a subordinate position, turn the negotiations into an arena of confrontation, capable of hitting the prestige of the USSR. To strengthen this position, the United States declared it necessary to increase its influence on the allies, make them loyal followers of the anti-Soviet policy, act as a united front against any manifestation of the "Soviet threat", forcing them to firmly follow the decisions of Washington.
Regarding the countries of the "third world", the idea was put forward of assisting all anti-communist and pro-Western forces, providing them with all kinds of economic and military support, including those that were in the territory of the USSR's sphere of influence. It was considered important to achieve allied relations with countries supplying raw materials, which would provide the United States with a high level of energy security and would make it possible to influence oil prices. Also, the goal was to get closer to China (while maintaining relations with Japan and Taiwan), to try to strengthen market trends in it and jointly put pressure on the USSR in the Far East.
Such was the US position under the circumstances; its firm anti-Soviet orientation, comprehensiveness of measures and the desire to win the confrontation at any cost (even through a preventive war) are quite clear.
Comparing the positions of the two main active actors of the Cold War, one can draw conclusions about the completely different orientation of their political doctrines: in the USSR it was the preservation of the status quo in strategic terms while maintaining and expanding the sphere of influence, in the United States it was an aggressive course to achieve an advantage over rival and even its possible liquidation, for which all Washington's leverage was mobilized. It can be concluded that the influence of the American program on international relations was higher, since it provided for active offensive operations on a number of points and involved the most diverse forces in the political game; the Soviet strategy remained rather limited and did not provide for both flexible solutions for confronting the enemy, and a possible victory in the confrontation. Perhaps such a somewhat defeatist view of the Soviet leaders on confrontation reduced the chances of the USSR to repel the offensive of the Reagan administration.
3. Superpower collision points
The confrontation between the USSR and the USA during the final stage of the Cold War, as in previous periods, had vivid manifestations at various levels of international politics. The most indicative of these manifestations in this time period can be considered the aggravation of the arms race and the events associated with it and the contradictions of the superpowers in regional and local crises.
3.1 A new stage in the arms race
As mentioned in previous sections, both sides by the end of the 70s. significantly increased their military potentials and staked on their further buildup; this was especially true of the United States, which began to seriously consider the possibility of delivering a first strike without retaliation from the USSR.
The Reagan administration, having freed up new funds through economic reforms, began an unprecedented large-scale military construction and modernization of the US armed forces, the introduction of new weapons systems and methods of warfare.
There was a colossal increase in military spending, annually their share in the country's budget has been steadily increasing. Washington's main attention was paid to the development of strategic forces that could ensure complete superiority over similar forces of the USSR.
In accordance with this strategy, first of all, there was a generational change of ballistic missiles of the US troops; MX missiles with 10-separable warheads and missiles with a single Minuteman warhead were put into operation. Due to the divided warhead, a significant increase in the number of nuclear projectiles was achieved. There was also an increase in the strategic forces of the navy: in addition to the existing Polaris-class submarines, 12 Trident submarines were built, each of which carried 336 (!) nuclear warheads; At the same time, due to the use of the latest advances in optics and electronics, an accuracy of hitting a target of up to 50 meters was achieved at a range of 11 thousand kilometers. The broadest modernization of the air force was carried out, completely new at that time bombers "Stealth" were created and put into operation. Thousands of high-precision and low-observable cruise missiles were added to the standard strategic assets, which, together with the equally accurate and much more powerful Pershing-2 nuclear missiles, were to be put on combat duty in Europe.
Enormous changes have also taken place in the field of conventional weapons: the number of ground forces has been significantly increased (by almost 200 thousand people), armadas of Abrams tanks (about 7000 units), new fighter-interceptors (about 8000 units), many new ships Navy, including nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers.
The crowning achievement of the Republican administration's military program was the so-called Strategic Defense Initiative, or SDI. The essence of this program was the construction of a number of stations and satellites in near-Earth orbit equipped with tracking systems and laser installations; such a system would have to completely protect the United States from ballistic missiles, destroying them on the way, and would provide the possibility of a first strike by the United States. And although many modern researchers consider this program to be still unlikely and used as a psychological weapon, it had rather serious consequences: in Moscow, this caused serious fears of being without the possibility of striking back. This fear, in turn, led the Soviet Union to look for symmetrical responses to SDI and to spend huge amounts of money on this item of defense spending as well; in fact, this was most likely the goal of the American program aimed at exhausting the Soviet economy in a high-tech arms race.
The buildup of American military power was accompanied by waging an "economic war" against the USSR. The concept of economic pressure described above was put into practice: special directives forbade the transfer of strategic equipment and technologies to the Soviet Union, the sale of "industrial disinformation" was carried out, and pressure increased on European allies to join the economic blockade. Bankers were urged not to give loans to the USSR at low interest rates, or to stop issuing loans altogether.
However, even in such difficult conditions, the Soviet Union sought to maintain strategic equality. The latest missile systems of various ranges were adopted, aviation was improved, submarines of the Typhoon type (similar in class to the Trident boats) were built, and the power of the already huge ground forces was increased. Hard work was also going on on issues related to the creation of weapons against SDI. In 1984, Temp-S medium-range missiles were deployed in the GDR and Czechoslovakia. But such large-scale construction in the field of armaments, against the backdrop of ever-expanding assistance to the allied regimes, sanctions imposed by Western countries, and falling oil exports, became a severe test for the Soviet economy. Military expenditures required more and more financial resources, the stock of which in the country was steadily declining; at the same time, civilian sectors of the economy were deprived of infusions, which aggravated the technological backwardness of industry and had a negative impact on the standard of living of the population. Thus, what the Reagan administration was striving for was happening - the arms race weakened the Soviet Union more and more, depleted its resources, and, accordingly, its geopolitical positions and reduced the chances of winning the confrontation.
In addition to the adoption of new types of weapons and the improvement of old ones, there was a constant demonstration of force on both sides, expressed in large-scale military exercises on the border between the blocks. So, after the Soviet air defense shot down a South Korean passenger Boeing on September 1, 1983, which illegally entered the airspace of the USSR (this moment is considered the apogee of the confrontation period), in October-November, the troops of the NATO countries carried out maneuvers that worked out the actions of the army in case of war with the Soviet Union. In response, ATS exercises were conducted on a no lesser scale, designed to show readiness to "decently meet" the enemy. Such intimidating actions became one of the elements of psychological warfare and kept the parties in constant tension.
However, despite the scale of the ongoing arms race, one should not forget about attempts to relieve tension. Such attempts were made by the Soviet Union, which really feared the start of a nuclear war by the Americans and was interested in easing pressure on its own economy. Yu. Andropov, having come to power, carried out his so-called "peace offensive" - he proposed to withdraw all Soviet and American medium-range missiles from Europe, and also offered compromises on regional conflicts. But Washington did not accept these proposals, citing their insincerity, and further pursued a policy of toughening its policy towards the USSR; it is significant that shortly after the announcement of the Soviet leadership's peace initiatives, R. Reagan called the Soviet Union an "evil empire." Attempts to end the arms race by negotiation have failed.
It can be concluded that the arms race was the most striking manifestation of a new period of confrontation; at the same time, it was intended not only to achieve a strategic advantage of one side over the other, but, on the part of the United States, was to become an important step towards the complete elimination of the rival. As subsequent events showed, the arms race and the economic clashes that accompanied it really had a negative impact on the position of the USSR and accelerated the process of its weakening and subsequent collapse. At the same time, the arms race became a severe test for the economies of both superpowers, which were in quite a crisis state in the early 1980s, but due to the bulkiness and inefficiency, as well as the emerging technological backwardness, the Soviet Union suffered much more; this was reflected in all areas, from general economic indicators to the shortage of consumer goods. The United States, having carried out large-scale reforms, managed to significantly increase its military power, which, having been created in the late 70s and 80s, still allows them to impose their own interests around the globe.
3.2 Local and regional crises
As mentioned above, the period of aggravated confrontation was characterized not only by an arms race, economic and political rivalry, but also by a number of confrontations related to conflicts in the zones of influence of countries. Such crises were the events in Afghanistan, Poland and Central America.
Having sent troops to Afghanistan, the Soviet leaders hoped to conduct a quick victorious war and strengthen the pro-Soviet regime in the country. However, the war began to drag on, the Soviet Union was losing people's lives and huge economic resources. Waging war with guerrilla units in the mountains became a difficult task for the trained for all-out offensives to the west. Soviet army. Military operations managed to destroy the bases of the rebels, but soon they reappeared in the same places. The Mujahideen relied on camps in Pakistan, where they could receive reinforcements and with renewed vigor engage in battle with Soviet and government troops.
It was Pakistan that became the main point of support for the guerrilla movement in Afghanistan. Shortly after the outbreak of hostilities, the rulers of Saudi Arabia, fearing the possibility of a Soviet invasion, began to provide active military and financial assistance to the Mujahideen. In these aspirations, they were supported by the American government, which saw in the Afghan war not only a threat to its interests, but also an opportunity to weaken the Soviet Union; in addition, the PRC provided assistance to the rebels. The USSR tried to reach an agreement with Pakistan on refusing to support anti-government troops, but Pakistan, which was under the influence of the West, did not agree to an agreement. In the meantime, weapons paid for by Western countries, including anti-aircraft missile and artillery systems, were getting into the hands of the Mujahideen; thousands of tons of military supplies entered Afghanistan through Pakistani territory; American intelligence carried out the prompt transmission of satellite images showing the position of the Soviet troops to the Mujahideen. Using the flow of military aid, the partisans put up stubborn resistance to the Soviet troops.
The Reagan administration, seeing the advantages of this situation for itself, actively stimulated the support of the Mujahideen, and also made plans to conduct sabotage operations in Central Asia with the possible transfer of hostilities there. All this, combined with international pressure and the growing internal dissatisfaction with the war, played a significant role in the fact that the Soviet Union was finally bogged down in the quagmire of civil war in Afghanistan. It put additional pressure on the Soviet economy, demanded the diversion of huge resources and influenced the decline in the international prestige of the USSR.
Another crisis in the Soviet zone of influence was the situation in Poland. In the early 1980s there broke out a government crisis associated with the struggle for power in the upper echelons, and an economic crisis, due to the general recession in the economy in the 70s. Poland, having received many Western loans, now had to return them, but the Polish government did not have the funds for this. Then, in order to avoid default in the country of the socialist community, Moscow began to pay the debts of Warsaw. This provided an additional burden on the Soviet economy, which, in the light of the confrontation, was beneficial to the United States. The dissatisfaction of the population with the drop in living standards, as well as the restriction of political freedoms, also grew stronger. Workers' strikes, rallies, speeches began to take place; by the autumn of 1980, the Solidarity association was created, aimed, in fact, at the destruction of the socialist order in the country. The situation was complicated by the election of Pole Karol Wojtyla as Pope John Paul II. The situation in Poland became increasingly critical, and martial law was introduced in December 1981; in Moscow, the possibility of bringing Soviet troops into Poland was considered. Under such conditions, having reached an agreement with John Paul II, the American ruling circles were able to establish support through unofficial channels for Solidarity and other opposition movements; in addition, the United States and its allies defiantly began supplying humanitarian aid to Poland. As a result, the Polish crisis was nevertheless resolved peacefully, the government found compromises with Solidarity, but the authority of the USSR was finally undermined, the majority of the population of not only Poland, but also other countries of Eastern and Central Europe began to have an extremely negative attitude towards the socialist system and orient themselves towards the West ; various liberal movements were expanding, for the struggle against which the USSR and its allied regimes had to spend significant funds.
Another crisis of this time period is the Central American one. Its beginning can be considered the end of the 1970s, when the struggle of the population against the dictator Somoza, who enjoyed the support of the United States, began in Nicaragua. By 1979, the left-wing forces had won in the country, having created a new government and set a course for the construction of socialism. Soon, anti-government right-wing movements appeared in Nicaragua, which soon began to receive the support of the Americans. In turn, the government headed by D. Ortega began to receive assistance from the USSR and Cuba. The civil war, unleashed, in fact, by the efforts of the White House, which feared the emergence of a new pro-Soviet state in the Caribbean, gave the Soviet Union some opportunity to win back for accusations of aggression against Afghanistan.
Then, in October 1983, the American army, contrary to the norms international law, made an invasion of Grenada. They overthrew the leftist government that came to power by legal means; The reason for the aggression was declared to be the fight against radical forces, which, having come to power, will want, together with Cuba, "to extend their regime to their neighbors in the Caribbean." However, in practice, the possibility of Cuban expansion was not very high, so the US actions were most likely aimed at intimidating the USSR in order to demonstrate Washington's readiness to take decisive action if Soviet financing of Central American leftist movements continued.
The crises in Central America turned many sections of the population against the US; however, thanks to the tough actions of the American government, the revolutionary movements did not receive the wide scope that the USSR was counting on when providing assistance to the countries of the region. On the contrary, providing support to new allies required more and more spending of much-needed funds for the Soviet Union to modernize the economy. The actions of the United States caused condemnation from European public opinion, but the fear of the USSR in the ranks of the Western inhabitants remained much stronger.
Thus, we can conclude that the main points of collision of the superpowers, which were the arms race and regional crises, contributed to the maintenance of general tension in international relations of that time; The USSR and the USA did not miss the opportunity to achieve a strategic advantage in one area or another. Compromises on the main problems were not found, the confrontation continued to absorb the resources of both sides, simultaneously having a negative impact on the world economy, trade, science and other industries. All these aspects had the most negative impact on the position of the Soviet Union and the socialist camp as a whole; the standard of living fell, the discontent of the population grew, technological backwardness, backwardness in the standard of living. Unable to withstand the frantic pace of confrontation, the USSR was losing influence and geopolitical positions; the strain of the economy led to a departure from the course of confrontation and the general weakening of the country; with the coming to power in March 1985, M.S. Gorbachev, tensions gradually began to subside, but this could no longer save the Soviet Union from the collapse that followed soon after.
Conclusion
In the course of the study, it was found that the reasons for the aggravation of the global confrontation between the USSR and the USA were, firstly, the expansion of the sphere of influence of the Soviet Union and the weakening of the position of the United States, which violated the prevailing by the beginning of the 1970s. the balance of power in the world; secondly, the contradictions between the two leading countries regarding human rights issues and the development of the "third world" countries played their role. All this, together with the coming to power in the United States of more radical politicians, led to the beginning of a new confrontation and increased tension in international relations.
A comparative analysis of the positions of the superpowers on issues of international relations led to the conclusion that the American side was more aggressive, striving to win the confrontation at any cost; the Soviet side adhered to the concept of maintaining the status quo, while expanding its own sphere of influence. It was this position of the United States that largely determined the extreme aggravation of relations with the USSR not only along the "Soviet Union-West" line, but also in many other areas of world politics.
Finally, an analysis of the "arms race" and conflicts, in which both superpowers were directly or indirectly involved, led to certain conclusions: the "arms race" was a powerful economic weapon that accelerated the disintegration of the USSR; the conflicts of that time, for the most part, took place one way or another under the control of one of the warring parties and were aimed at achieving a strategic advantage in some aspect. Any event in international relations was considered in the context of the confrontation between the USSR and the USA, which increased the atmosphere of distrust at that time.
So, in conclusion, it becomes clear about the enormous influence of the Cold War period from the late 70s to the mid-80s. throughout the system of international relations. The tough position of the parties (first of all, the American one), the constant expectation of the outbreak of an atomic war, the ongoing peripheral clashes made it impossible for the superpowers to compromise, and intensified the confrontation in all directions. The disruption of economic, trade, technical and scientific ties between the West and the socialist camp accelerated the process of the latter's disintegration and had a negative impact on the standard of living of ordinary citizens. Finally, the exhausting "arms race" finally undermined the might of the Soviet Union and put it on the trajectory of collapse. It was also able to ensure the military hegemony of the United States already in our time, which became possible due to the main consequence of the final stage of the Cold War - the collapse of the Yalta-Potsdam system of international relations and the formation of a new, unipolar, led by the United States and its allies.
List of used literature
1.Reader on the history of Russia from ancient times to the present day. Tutorial. - Moscow: Prospect, 2000. - 592 p.
2.Reader by national history(1946 - 1995): Textbook for university students // Ed.A. Kiseleva, E. Shchagina. - Moscow: VLADOS, 1996. - 600 p.
.The Cold War - the great confrontation of the superpowers // #"justify">. Systematic history of international relations in four volumes. Volume IV. The documents 1945-2003 // Ed. A. Bogaturova. - Moscow: NOFMO, 2004. - 594 p.
.History of wars. Reference manual // Ed.M. Aksenova. - Moscow: Avanta +, Astrel, 2007. - 640 p.
.Utkin A. World Cold War. - Moscow: Algorithm, Eksmo, 2005. - 393 p.
.Lavrenov S., Popov I. The Soviet Union in local wars and conflicts. - Moscow: ACT, Astrel, 2003. - 778 p.
8.Ethiopian Revolution // Global Security // #"justify">9. Limarev V. Brief history of Cambodia // History of Cambodia // #"justify">. Mlechin L. Cold war: politicians, generals, scouts. - Moscow: Tsentrpoligraf, 2011. - 574 p.
."Carter Doctrine" // The Cold War - the great confrontation of the superpowers // #"justify">. Jackson-Vanik Amendment: Let's Hit Human Rights with Trade // Online newspaper "Zona. kz" // #"justify">. Brezhnev's geopolitical doctrine // Gromyko // #"justify">. Shubin A. From "stagnation" to reforms. USSR in 1977-1985 - Moscow: Rosspen, 2001 (Fragments) - 89 p.
.Yakovlev A. From Truman to Reagan. Doctrines and realities of the nuclear age. - Moscow: Young Guard, 1985. - 416 p.
.Kalashnikov M. Baptism by fire: the struggle of the giants. - Moscow: AST, Astrel, 2008. - 512 p.
.Reagan's speech on March 8, 1983 ("Evil Empire") // The Cold War - the great opposition of the superpowers // http://www.coldwar.ru/raegan/evil_empire. php (Was available on 04/14/2012)
Tutoring
Need help learning a topic?
Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Submit an application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.
1) Korean War
2) Building the Berlin Wall
3) Caribbean Crisis
4) Vietnam War
5) Afghan war
47. Scientific and technological revolution and its impact on the course of world social development. Socio-economic and political development of the USSR in 1964-1984. (L.I. Brezhnev and his successors).
After Stalin's death in 1953, the reins of government of the country were concentrated in the hands of a small group of politicians: I.V. Stalin's successor as Chairman of the Council of Ministers G.I. Malenkov, Minister of the United Ministry of Internal Affairs L.P. Beria and Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU N.S. Khrushchev. A struggle for leadership immediately began between them, culminating in the victory of N. S. Khrushchev.
In the second half of the 1950s, the USSR completed the tasks of industrialization, and acute social contradictions were left behind. Post-Stalinist reforms began to produce tangible results both in competition with the United States and in raising living standards.
At the same time, further transformations in the political, ideological and economic spheres increasingly rested on the need for a decisive break with the past. The truth should have been told openly. mass repression, reveal the causes of deep deformations of Soviet society. N. S. Khrushchev managed to do this in part at the XX Congress of the CPSU, held in February 1956. By this time, his position in the country's leadership had seriously strengthened. The XX Congress of the CPSU, the debunking of Stalin, the exposure of the repressive regime associated with him marked the beginning of a new stage in the social life of the party and the country.
In 1957-1958, Khrushchev carried out three reforms. They concerned industry, agriculture and the education system. Khrushchev wanted to decentralization of industry management., the transition from the sectoral principle of leadership to the territorial It was decided that industrial enterprises should be managed not by ministries, but by local bodies - economic councils. Only strictly centralized management of a few strategic sectors (defense, aviation, radio engineering, etc.) was preserved.
The reform brought only a fraction of the economic effect that its creators counted on. The unified technical policy turned out to be weakened within the industrial branches that continued to objectively exist, having lost their coordinating bodies. The reform weakened economic ties between regions, giving rise to localism. As before the ministries, so now each territorial economic council tried to pull over the nationwide financial "blanket".
To overcome the parochial bias in 1960, republican SNKh were created in Russian Federation, Kazakhstan and Ukraine, and in 1963 - the Supreme Council National economy USSR.
Much more significant impact on the structure of production transformation in agriculture. Khrushchev changed the criteria for planning in agriculture. Now the collective farm received only mandatory tasks for procurement instead of strict regulation of activities. For the first time he could decide for himself how to use his own resources and organize production. Under Khrushchev, there was a reduction in the number of collective farms and an increase in the number of state farms. The poorest collective farms were united and for their improvement were transformed into state farms. A characteristic feature was the enlargement of farms at the expense of unpromising villages. Khrushchev's new reform was limited to these frameworks. The main difference between the state farm and the collective farm was the ownership of the machine and tractor stations. State farms had them, and collective farms used the services of the MTS in exchange for food. MTS were dissolved, and their equipment was transferred to the ownership of collective farms. This was very important for strengthening the independence of the peasant economy. However, the haste in the implementation of the reform did not produce the desired results.
The notorious corn epic cost the Soviet peasantry dearly. N. S. Khrushchev, visiting the United States in 1959, suddenly ardently believed that it was possible to quickly raise the “virgin meat lands” if the structure of the sown areas of fodder production was radically changed: instead of grass fields, follow the example of rich America, to sow corn. But only in the southern regions of the country, corn took root and began to generate income.
Khrushchev's third reform affected the education system. The reform was based on two measures. N.S. Khrushchev eliminated the system of "labor reserves", that is, a network of paramilitary schools that existed at public expense, which were created before the war to train skilled workers. They were replaced by ordinary vocational schools, which could be entered after the seventh grade. The secondary school received a "polytechnic" profile, which involved combining education with work, so that the student got an idea about one or more professions. However, the lack of funds did not allow equipping schools with modern equipment, and enterprises could not fully bear the pedagogical burden.
In general, two periods are often distinguished in the Khrushchev decade, differing in economic results. The first (1953-1958) is the most positive, when Nikita Sergeevich fought for supremacy in a collegial leadership hostile to him; the second (from 1959 to the removal of Khrushchev in 1964) - when there were fewer positive results.
The first plan for the development of the country, which was based mainly on industrialization, was the seven-year plan adopted by the 21st Party Congress. With its help, they tried, without hindering the development of the country, to make up for the serious imbalances from which Soviet society suffered. It stated that in 7 years the USSR had to produce as much as in the previous 40 years.
The Seven Year Plan brought the Soviet economy out of stagnation. The economic gap between the USSR and the USA has narrowed. However, not all industries developed uniformly. The production of consumer goods, which were chronically in short supply, grew slowly. The shortage was exacerbated by ignorance of the demand in the goods market, which no one studied. Among the disproportions in the seven-year plan, the most severe was the crisis in agriculture. Farms lacked electricity, chemical fertilizers, valuable crops.
In the 60s N.S. Khrushchev began to restrain the private activities of the peasants. He hoped to force the peasants to work more on the collective farm and less on private farms, which caused discontent among the peasants. Many rushed to the cities, and as a result, the villages began to empty. Economic difficulties coincided with a poor harvest in 1963. Interruptions in the supply of bread became more frequent. For the first time in its history, the USSR bought grain abroad in America for gold.
The agrarian crisis, the expansion of market relations, the rapid disillusionment with the economic councils, rivalry with more developed countries, criticism of Stalin's activities and greater intellectual freedom became factors that contributed to the revival of economic thought in the USSR. Discussions of scientists on economic problems revived. This was warmly welcomed by N.S. Khrushchev. Two directions were revealed: the widespread use of mathematical methods in planning, greater independence for enterprises, less rigid and mandatory planning, which allows the development of market relations, and the study of the Western economy.
The current situation in the economy was projected on Khrushchev's social policy. In the mid 50s. a package of measures aimed at improving the lives of the population was developed. Wages were regularly raised (by an average of 6% annually). The issuance of obligatory government bonds has ceased. A law was adopted on pensions, which provided for their double increase for workers and employees (pensions for collective farmers were established in 1965). All types of tuition fees are cancelled. The level of consumption of basic foodstuffs has increased significantly.
There was a boom in housing construction. For 1956–1960 housewarming was celebrated by about a quarter of the country's population. At the same time, the housing standard itself was changing: families increasingly received free of charge from the state not rooms, but separate, albeit small-sized, apartments.
In 1961, the Moral Code of the Builder of Communism was proclaimed. In parallel with this, an atheist campaign was launched.
After the 22nd Congress of the CPSU (October 1961), the second wave of reforms began in Khrushchev's activities. In March 1962, he reorganized the entire administrative apparatus of agriculture. According to the reform project, the entire party from top to bottom changed the territorial structure to the production one. Its apparatus was divided into two parallel structures for industry and agriculture, which were united only at the top. In each region, two regional committees appeared: for industry and for agriculture- each with its own first secretary. According to the same principle, the executive bodies - regional executive committees - were also divided. Such a reform was fraught with conflicts, as it led to the embryo of a two-party system.
In the fall of 1962, Khrushchev called for a partial abolition of censorship. He obtained permission from the Presidium of the Central Committee to publish the landmark work "One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich" by Solzhenitsyn.
Progressive changes in the years of Khrushchev's rule took place and in foreign policy. In May 1953 diplomatic relations with Yugoslavia were restored. In 1955 By agreement between the USSR and the USA, Soviet and American troops were withdrawn from Austria, which, thanks to this, avoided a split into two states and became neutral. In 1956 Japan signed a declaration to end the state of war and restore diplomatic relations.
The Cold War had a great influence on international relations. The growth of the influence of the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe after the Second World War and the formation of communist-led governments there, the victory of the Chinese revolution, the growth of the anti-colonial liberation movement in Southeast Asia led to a new alignment of forces on the world stage, to a gradual confrontation between yesterday's allies. The most acute clash of the two forces in the early 50s was the Korean conflict. He showed how easily “a cold war can escalate into an armed clash. The Soviet government constantly offered to expand trade relations. New relationship with outside world could not be limited only to economics and technology, contacts were established and an exchange of delegations began with the parliaments of other countries.
An important milestone in the strengthening of relations between the socialist states was the creation of the Warsaw Treaty Organization - the Union, which proclaimed its goal to pursue a defense policy. The thaw also affected the relations of our country with the countries of the West. A treaty was concluded on collective security in Europe with the participation of the United States. The peak of the contradictions between East and West was the "Caribbean crisis" (1962), caused by the deployment of nuclear missiles by the Soviet Union in Cuba. The idea of deploying missiles in Cuba belonged to N.S. Khrushchev himself. At the same time, the goal was to save “socialist” Cuba from US attack. The USSR had another, more important goal: to try to reduce the US advantage in nuclear missile weapons. The crisis that brought the world to the brink of a nuclear catastrophe was resolved through negotiations and compromises reached.
Another problem of negotiations and disagreements with the West, and especially the United States, was disarmament. The Soviet Union has achieved significant success in the nuclear race. The USSR put forward many proposals for disarmament. So Khrushchev in September 1959. spoke at the UN Assembly with a program of "general and complete disarmament" of all countries. In March 1958 The USSR, on its own initiative, unilaterally suspended nuclear weapons tests. However, in 1961 he was forced to suspend it due to the aggravation of the situation due to the construction of the Berlin Wall.
After the Cold War, a slow process of improvement in East-West relations began. The thaw in international relations was real and allowed the people of many countries to look at each other differently.
Khrushchev's position became especially difficult after the break in Soviet-Chinese relations. They became so aggravated that they resulted in border conflicts. China began to present territorial claims to the USSR. This gap also had a detrimental effect on the international communist movement. The disagreements were caused by differences in the assessment of the decisions of the XX Congress of the CPSU. China reacted negatively to the assessment of Stalin's activities.
On October 14, 1964, at the Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, Khrushchev was removed from all state and party posts and retired. The official announcement spoke of his resignation due to advanced age and health. In fact, at the Plenum of the Central Committee, as well as the day before at a meeting of the Presidium of the Central Committee of the CPSU, Khrushchev was accused of the collapse of the economy, belittling the role of Soviet and party bodies, personal indiscretion, and the desire to single-handedly resolve the most important issues.
Why did the Iranian crisis arise? How did W. Churchill's Fulton speech and I. Stalin's reaction to it influence the international situation?3. What was the balance of power in Greece during the civil war? Why did the USSR refrain from actively helping the Greek communists?
4. What claims did the USSR put forward against Turkey? What was the US position during the crisis?
The first obvious consequences of the Soviet foreign policy strategy were the Iranian, Greek and Turkish crises.
According to the Potsdam decisions, after the end of the world war, the USSR, the USA and Great Britain were to withdraw their troops from Iran, where they were introduced in 1942 to prevent Iran's reorientation towards Germany.
Keyword
A crisis- a sharp aggravation of contradictions between states, capable of developing into a full-scale war at any moment. As a rule, crises occur against the backdrop of an acute shortage of time resources for the political and diplomatic settlement of the dispute. In the development of the crisis, several main phases are distinguished: creeping, culmination (the highest point), from which events can develop either to war or to compromise and settlement (the phase of overcoming the crisis).
On September 13, 1945, the Iranian government asked the three powers to withdraw their troops. American troops were evacuated by January 1, 1946. By March 2, the British left Iran. The Soviet Union refused to name a date for the withdrawal of troops. There were reasons for this. In Iran, in the last years of World War II, there was an increase in the national-revolutionary ferment of ethnic minorities - Azerbaijanis in the northwest, in Iranian Azerbaijan, and Kurds in the southwest, in Iranian Kurdistan. These were separatist movements whose leaders sought broad autonomy from the all-Iranian government in Tehran. The leadership of Iran, as well as in Western capitals, suspected that the USSR might assist the separatists in order to separate Iranian Azerbaijan from Iran and unite it with Soviet Azerbaijan (Azerbaijan SSR). On November 18, 1945, an uprising began in Iranian Azerbaijan, organized by the People's Party of Iran (the Tudeh Party, in fact, the Iranian Communist Party). The central government sent troops from Tehran to suppress the rebellion, but they were not allowed into the area covered by it by Soviet forces. In March 1946, the Iranian government filed a complaint with the UN Security Council about the actions of the Soviet military authorities.
The USSR also used the question of the presence of its troops on Iranian territory as a means of putting pressure on Tehran in order to obtain oil concessions from it in northern Iran. Soviet-Iranian negotiations on the withdrawal of troops, linked to the problem of oil concessions, were difficult.
Public opinion in Great Britain, whose zone of influence had been southern Iran for many years, reacted especially violently to the events. Now that the British troops had left and the Soviets remained, British politicians felt betrayed. In the midst of the Iranian crisis, on March 5, 1946, former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who retired in 1945, delivered his famous diatribe against the USSR while speaking at Westminster College in Fulton (Missouri, USA). W. Churchill accused Moscow of creating an "iron curtain" dividing the world into two parts, and called for strengthening the "Anglo-Saxon partnership" between the US and Britain in the interests of countering the communist threat. During the speech of the British politician, US President Harry Truman was in the hall, who did not develop the ideas stated by W. Churchill, but did not express disagreement with them either. In the world, the "Fulton speech" was perceived as a manifesto of the "cold war", the beginning of which, figuratively speaking, was proclaimed by the retired British prime minister.
Winston Churchill's speech received international resonance largely because I. V. Stalin directly responded to it. On March 14, 1946, in a special interview, he spoke sharply about this speech, stating that in essence it meant a call to war. The press picked up Stalin's careless statements and the problem of "war" between the USSR and the West became the motive for newspaper comments. As a result, fears began to escalate in the political atmosphere around the world. The confrontation between the USSR and the West began to escalate.
Keyword
Escalation- growth, escalation of tension, aggravation of the situation or
conflict.
The Iranian crisis was resolved during the Soviet-Iranian dialogue by April 1946. As a compromise, agreements were reached on the creation of a Soviet-Iranian oil society on favorable terms for the USSR and on expanding the representation of delegates from Iranian Azerbaijan in the Iranian Mejlis. By May 9, 1946, Soviet troops were withdrawn from Iran, and in June the consequences of the uprising in Iranian Azerbaijan were eliminated. In September of the same year, separatist pockets in Iranian Kurdistan (Fars province) were suppressed.
At the end of the crisis, Washington remained convinced that Moscow was forced to make concessions by the principled position of the United States and Britain on Iran. JV Stalin concluded that a British-American alliance was being formed against the USSR.
2, After the country was occupied by German troops in June 1941, King George II fled the country with his family. A partisan movement arose in the occupied territory, in which the communists played an important role - the People's Liberation Army of the Greek People (ELAS). By 1945, its forces had liberated about two-thirds of the country from German troops. Meanwhile, in October 1944, with the support of the Western allies, parts of the armed forces of the royal government arrived in Greece, which clashed with communist detachments. The conflict lasted until February 1945. Although the Soviet Union had influence on the Greek communists and could provide assistance to them through the territory of Yugoslavia, controlled by the forces of J. B. Tito, J. V. Stalin did not want to aggravate relations with Great Britain, whose sphere of influence included Gretzsch , according to the tacit agreements of the "Big Three" during the war years. The Greek communists were advised to yield. On February 12, 1945, in the town of Varkiza, near Athens, agreements were signed between the leaders of the left-wing detachments and the royal government, according to which power was transferred to the latter. Part of the Greek communists did not agree with this decision.
In the summer of 1946, the crisis escalated due to attempts by the authorities to increase military pressure on the left. A civil war broke out in Greece, which lasted until 1949. In the Western capitals, responsibility for it was placed on Moscow, which was only partly true. Although the Greek communists had the opportunity to receive assistance from abroad, the USSR continued to refrain from such support, including because of the desire not to irritate friendly Bulgaria, which itself had territorial claims against Greece and was suspicious of the militancy of the Greek communists. In fact, the main initiator of helping the Greek communists was J. B. Tito.
3. In February 1945, Turkey formally declared war on Germany, but did not conduct military operations against it. Relations between the USSR and Turkey during the World War were riddled with mutual distrust. Moscow expected Ankara's speech on the side of Germany and prepared for it. But Turkey evaded entry into the war and benefited from it. The Soviet Union had no formal grounds to enter into a conflict with Turkey, especially since between the two countries there had been a periodically extended Treaty of Friendship and Neutrality since 1925. It was last extended for 10 years in 1935 in such a way that its validity period was to expire on September 7, 1945. On March 19, 1945, 6 months before its expiration, the USSR, as provided for in the text treaty, notified the Turkish government of its intention not to renew it. In Ankara, this was regarded as a warning about the toughening of the USSR's attitude towards Turkey.
At the Potsdam Conference, the Soviet Union tried to achieve the right to ensure the security of the straits along with Turkey. But these demands of the USSR were not supported. In view of its decision to terminate the Soviet-Turkish treaty, the Soviet Union tried to obtain from Ankara an advantageous security regime in the strait zone at the bilateral level. On August 7, 1946, a note was sent to the Turkish government with a proposal to enter into negotiations on changing the navigation regime in the Black Sea straits and allowing the USSR to create a Soviet military base in the straits zone. The content of the note was immediately brought to the attention of the Turkish side by the US Secretary of State James Francis Byrnes, who at that moment was in Paris.
According to American sources, the Soviet note was taken seriously in Washington, as the American leadership did not cease to reproach itself for the "softness" shown in relation to the actions of the USSR during the Iranian crisis, and sought to behave more firmly this time. In the United States, the question of possible measures of military counteraction to the USSR was discussed if, following the note, it would take military actions against Turkey. In the spring-autumn of 1946, based on reports from American and British intelligence about the concentration of Soviet troops in Romania, Bulgaria and the territory of the Soviet Transcaucasia (according to various sources, up to 600,000 Soviet troops were stationed in Romania, and up to 235,000 in Bulgaria) , in the United States and Great Britain were inclined to believe the possibility of a Soviet armed uprising against Turkey.
However, soon American representatives from Turkey and Moscow began to report to Washington that there were no signs of the Soviet side's intention to take steps against Ankara. The crisis did not follow. The Turkish government, upon receiving the note, according to Western sources, also considered it less harsh than it had expected. Moscow did not intend to go into conflict. Perhaps, given the painful reaction of the United States and Britain to the note on the straits, the Soviet government did not insist on accepting its demands. In October, American and British intelligence recorded a decrease in Soviet activity near the borders of Turkey. However, officially the USSR did not renounce its claims to Ankara until May 30, 1953.
The US leadership has learned from the Turkish situation the belief in the need for bases in the Eastern Mediterranean and the provision of military and economic assistance to Turkey to modernize its military potential. Washington paid more attention to oil supplies from the Middle East, the security of which depended on the situation in the Mediterranean. Greece and Turkey, separating this region from the USSR, acquired special significance for American strategic planning.
Minimum knowledge
1. USSR in 1945-1946 tried to check the degree of readiness of the Western allies to protect the "disputed", in his opinion, countries and territories and, if possible, to attach them to his zone of influence. In Iran, the USSR supported the anti-government movements of Kurdistan and Iranian Azerbaijan. Churchill's speech in Fulton, in which he called for the unification of the Anglo-Saxon world against the USSR, which had separated itself with the Iron Curtain, provoked a painful reaction from Stalin, which led to an escalation of international tension.
2. Despite the significant opportunities for the Greek communists to spread their power in the country, the USSR did not provide them with significant assistance, based on allied agreements with Britain during the anti-Hitler coalition.
3. The USSR sought to close the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles for the passage of warships of non-Black Sea powers. Therefore, he proposed the idea of "joint defense" of the Black Sea straits. Relying on the support of the United States, Turkey rejected this proposal. In the public opinion of Western countries, ideas about the aggressive intentions of the USSR towards Turkey spread.
Cold War periods and international crises.
There are two periods in the Cold War. For the period 1946 - 1963. characterized by growing tensions between the two great powers, culminating in the Cuban Missile Crisis. This is the period of the creation of military-political blocs and conflicts in the zones of contact between the two socio-economic systems. Significant events were the Korean War of 1950-1953, the French war in Vietnam of 1946-1954, the suppression of the uprising in Hungary in 1956 by the USSR, the Suez crisis of 1956, the Berlin crises of 1948-1949, 1953 and 1961, Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. A number of them almost caused a new world war.
The second period of the Cold War began in 1963. It is characterized by the transfer of the center of gravity of international conflicts to the Third World, to the periphery of world politics. At the same time, relations between the USA and the USSR were transformed from confrontation to detente of international tension, to negotiations and agreements, in particular, on the reduction of nuclear and conventional arms and on the peaceful settlement of international disputes. The major conflicts were the US war in Vietnam and the Soviet war in Afghanistan.
Caribbean crisis.
In the spring of 1962, the leaders of the USSR and Cuba decided to secretly place medium-range nuclear missiles on this island. The USSR hoped to make the United States as vulnerable to a nuclear strike as the Soviet Union became after the deployment of American missiles in Turkey. Receiving information about the deployment of Soviet missiles on the "Red Island" caused a panic in the United States. The confrontation reached its peak on October 27-28, 1962. The world was on the brink of war, but prudence prevailed: the USSR withdrew nuclear missiles from the island in response to US President John F. Kennedy's promises not to invade Cuba and remove missiles from Turkey.
War in Vietnam.
The United States provided assistance to South Vietnam, but the regime established there was in danger of collapse. A guerrilla movement developed on the territory of South Vietnam, supported by the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (DRV, North Vietnam), China and the USSR. In 1964 the United States, using its own provocation as a pretext, launched a massive bombardment of North Vietnam, and in 1965 landed troops in South Vietnam.
Soon these troops were drawn into fierce fighting with the partisans. The United States used the scorched earth tactics, carried out massacres of civilians, but the resistance movement expanded. The Americans and their local henchmen suffered more and more losses. The US troops were equally unsuccessful in Laos and Cambodia. Protests against the war around the world, including in the United States itself, along with military failures, forced the Americans to enter into peace negotiations. In 1973 American troops were withdrawn from Vietnam. In 1975, the partisans took its capital - the city of Saigon. A new state appeared - the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (SRV).
War in Afghanistan.
In April 1978, a military coup d'etat took place in Afghanistan, carried out by adherents of leftist views. The new leadership of the country concluded an agreement with the Soviet Union and repeatedly asked it for military assistance. The USSR supplied Afghanistan with weapons and military equipment. The civil war between supporters and opponents of the new regime in Afghanistan flared up more and more. In December 1979, the USSR decided to send a limited contingent of troops into the country. The presence of Soviet troops in Afghanistan was regarded by the Western powers as aggression, although the USSR acted within the framework of an agreement with the country's leadership and sent troops at its request. In fact, the Soviet troops were drawn into the civil war in Afghanistan. The withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan was carried out in February 1989.
Middle East conflict.
A special place in international relations is occupied by the conflict in the Middle East between the State of Israel and its Arab neighbors.
International Jewish (Zionist) organizations chose the territory of Palestine as a center for the Jews of the whole world at the beginning of the 20th century. In November 1947, the UN decided to create two states on the territory of Palestine: Arab and Jewish. Jerusalem stood out as an independent unit. On May 14, 1948, the State of Israel was proclaimed, and on May 15, the Arab Legion, which was in Jordan, opposed the Israelis. The first Arab-Israeli war began. Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Iraq brought troops into Palestine. The war ended in 1949. Israel occupied more than half of the territory assigned to the Arab state and the western part of Jerusalem. Jordan got its eastern part and the western bank of the Jordan River, Egypt got the Gaza Strip. Total number Arab refugees exceeded 900 thousand people.
Since then, the confrontation between Jews and Arabs in Palestine has remained one of the most acute problems. Zionists called on Jews from all over the world to move to Israel, to their "historical homeland." Jewish settlements were created to accommodate them in the Arab territories. Influential forces in Israel dream of creating a "Greater Israel" from the Nile to the Euphrates (this idea is symbolically reflected in the national flag of Israel). The United States and other Western countries became Israel's ally, the USSR supported the Arabs.
In 1956, the nationalization of the Suez Canal announced by Egyptian President G. A. Nasser hit the interests of Great Britain and France (Nasser supported the anti-French uprising in Algeria). The tripartite Anglo-French-Israeli aggression against Egypt began. On October 29, 1956, the Israeli army crossed the Egyptian border, and the British and French landed in the canal zone. The forces were unequal, an attack on Cairo was being prepared. Only after the threat of the USSR to use force against the aggressors in November 1956, hostilities were stopped, and the troops of the interventionists left Egypt.
On June 5, 1967, Israel began hostilities against the Arab states in response to the activities of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), headed by Yasser Arafat, created in 1964 to fight for the formation of an Arab state in Palestine and the liquidation of Israel. Israeli troops quickly moved deep into Egypt, Syria, Jordan. Protests against aggression that swept the whole world, and the efforts of the USSR forced Israel to stop hostilities already on June 10. During the six-day war, Israel occupied the Gaza Strip, the Sinai Peninsula, the western bank of the Jordan River, the eastern part of Jerusalem, the Golan Heights in Syrian territory.
In 1973 a new war began. The Arab troops acted more successfully, Egypt managed to liberate part of the Sinai Peninsula. In 1970 and 1982-1991 Israeli troops invaded Lebanese territory to fight the Palestinian refugees who were there. Part of Lebanese territory came under Israeli control. Only at the beginning of the XXI century. Israeli troops left Lebanon, but provocations against that country continued.
All attempts by the UN and the leading world powers to achieve an end to the conflict were unsuccessful for a long time. Only in 1978-1979. Through the mediation of the United States, it was possible to sign a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel at Camp David. Israel withdrew troops from the Sinai Peninsula, but the Palestinian problem was not solved. Since 1987, an intifada began in the occupied territories of Palestine - an uprising of Palestinians. In 1988, the creation of the State of Palestine was announced. An attempt to resolve the conflict was an agreement between the leaders of Israel and the PLO in the mid-1990s. on the creation of a Palestinian autonomy on part of the occupied territories. However, the Palestinian Authority was completely dependent on Israel, and Jewish settlements remained on its territory.
The situation escalated at the end of the 20th - beginning of the 21st century, when the second intifada began. Israel was forced to withdraw its troops and migrants from the Gaza Strip. But mutual shelling of the territory of Israel and the Palestinian Authority, terrorist acts continued. In the summer of 2006, there was a war between Israel and the Lebanese organization Hezbollah. In late 2008 - early 2009, Israeli troops attacked the Gaza Strip, where the radical Hamas movement was in power. The hostilities have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Palestinians.
Discharge.
Since the mid 50s. The USSR repeatedly came up with initiatives for general and complete disarmament. The most important steps towards easing the international situation were taken in the 1970s. There was a growing understanding in the USA and the USSR that a further arms race was becoming pointless, that military spending was undermining the economy. The improvement in relations between the USSR and the West was called détente.
An essential milestone on the path of détente was the normalization of relations between the USSR and the FRG. An important point of the agreement between them was the recognition of the western borders of Poland and the border between the GDR and the FRG (1970). During a visit to the USSR in May 1972 by US President R. Nixon, agreements were signed on the limitation of antimissile defense systems (ABM) and the Treaty on the Limitation of Strategic Arms (SALT-1). The new Treaty on the Limitation of Strategic Arms (SALT-2) was signed in 1979. The treaties provided for the mutual reduction of the number of ballistic missiles.
On July 30 - August 1, 1975, the final stage of the Conference on Security and Cooperation of the Heads of 33 European countries, the USA and Canada took place in Helsinki. Its result was the Final Act, which fixed the principles of the inviolability of borders in Europe, respect for the independence and sovereignty, territorial integrity of states, the renunciation of the use of force and the threat of its use.
At the end of the 70s. reduced tension in Asia. The SEATO and CENTO blocs ceased to exist. However, the entry of Soviet troops into Afghanistan, conflicts in other parts of the world in the early 80s. again led to an intensification of the arms race and increased tension.
QUESTIONS AND TASKS
1. What were the reasons for the formation of military-political blocs? What were their tasks?
2. What are the causes of crises in the 1940s and 1950s? What were their consequences?
3. What are the causes and consequences of the major military conflicts of the 1960s and 1980s?
4. What is discharge? What are its reasons? What agreements were reached?
5. How did the balance of power in the world change at the end of the 20th - beginning of the 21st century?
6. Make a table showing the chronology of the major international conflicts that occurred in the second half of the 20th - early 21st centuries.
In the summer of 2011, the process of gradual withdrawal of US forces from Afghanistan will officially start. By 2014, NATO members plan to complete the transfer of responsibility for the situation in the country to the Afghan security forces, which are being trained in reinforced teams with the participation of regional and international structures. However, the situation in the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (IRA) remains difficult. Inter-ethnic problems are still unresolved, the fight against the irreconcilable armed opposition is far from over, colossal corruption that hinders the economic recovery of Afghanistan, an invincible drug mafia that has merged with the bureaucracy at the highest level, and an increase in drug consumption within the country itself. All this is happening against the backdrop of the low efficiency of international and regional structures, including the UN. When the Americans and NATO will leave Afghanistan completely, if they leave at all, and whether it will be possible to maintain state stability after their departure remains in question.
Today, NATO's operation in Afghanistan no longer attracts as much attention as ten years ago. Firstly, this long-term war of the West has managed to get fed up with the international community: politicians, the media, and the townsfolk. Secondly, everyone is used to bad news about the permanent activity of the Taliban and the next casualties as a result of hostilities, so this does not cause a particularly sharp reaction, unless the NATO countries are going through another electoral cycle. Thirdly, the troops of the North Atlantic Alliance are going to leave Afghan soil in the near future, which gives many people a reason to talk about the war in Afghanistan as a successfully completed mission, which is an example of the readiness to carry out the most complex operations under the auspices of the alliance far beyond its area of responsibility. Fourthly, the West has a fresh, much more interesting and, let's note, much easier task - the overthrow of Colonel Gaddafi in Libya. Against the backdrop of heavy and costly trench warfare in Afghanistan, the operation in Libya is a kind of cakewalk.
Indeed, it is not necessary to keep more than 132,000 people in Libya to maintain a semblance of order and stability and to spend resources on providing for 28 so-called Provincial Reconstruction Teams scattered throughout Afghanistan and engaged in various social and infrastructure projects. It is in Afghanistan, and not in Libya, that in order to solve the problem of resource hunger, NATO needs the presence of 48 countries, not only the leading powers of the world (USA, France, Germany, Great Britain) but also small states, whose contribution to the common cause of creating stability and restoring order in this country is limited to no more than ten military personnel or specialists.
It was in Afghanistan, and not in Libya, that the US and NATO lost hundreds of people killed, and even more Afghan civilians died as a result of careless or negligent actions of the North Atlantic Alliance.
However, it may turn out that the Libyan "easy air ride" after some time will also turn into a very difficult problem, which may not become a "litmus test" for the future of NATO, but may create additional political and functional difficulties for the organization. After all, the war of the United States and its allies in Afghanistan also began with aerial bombardments.
How it all began
The war in Afghanistan was preceded by tragic events - the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, after which the then US President, Republican George W. Bush, declared war on international terrorism in the person of Al-Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden and the Taliban regime in which by that time had become the main base of international terrorism, where radical Islamist militants found their refuge under the wing of the radical Islamic movement "Taliban".
Bush sent US troops to clear Afghanistan of the Taliban, enlisting the diplomatic support of many countries of the world, including Russia. The legal basis for US military action was paragraph 51 of Chapter VII of the UN Charter on the right "to individual or collective self-defence." The Americans had three main goals: to destroy bin Laden, to end al-Qaeda, and to overthrow the Taliban regime.
On October 7, 2001, the US President authorized air strikes against the Afghan capital, Kabul, and a number of other cities. The military operation "Enduring Freedom" began, in which the United States' closest ally, Great Britain, took the most active part. If the Americans and the British were mainly engaged in air strikes on the main cities of Afghanistan and the strongholds of the Taliban, then the Northern Alliance, led by Ahmad Shah Massoud, played the most important role in the ground operation.
Many European countries rushed to help the Americans and voluntarily joined the "anti-terrorist coalition". In support of the United States, the North Atlantic bloc for the first time in its history enacted Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, and two years later the alliance decided to go to Afghanistan after its main member and partner.
By December 2001, the Taliban regime had been overthrown, and many thousands of militants were forced out to the border with Pakistan and settled in the area of the Pashtun tribes on the Afghan-Pakistani border.
Under the vigilant leadership of the American administration and with the active participation of NATO and the United Nations, the construction of a "democratic" Afghanistan began. At the same time, the UN, as the main international structure, certainly could not remain aloof from the Afghan problem. Under its auspices, in early December 2001, the first historic conference on Afghanistan was held in Bonn, as a result of which the country received an interim administration headed by Hamid Karzai.
The next decision on Afghanistan was the creation of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in accordance with Security Council Resolution 1386 (December 20, 2001). The first mandate of ISAF was for a period of six months. Then it was regularly extended. All in all, the UN adopted 12 resolutions on Afghanistan.
It is worth noting that only the International Forces, not NATO, have a mandate to stay in Afghanistan. No Security Council resolution relating to Afghanistan gives the alliance a UN mandate to conduct a mission in Afghanistan. Having voluntarily and independently assumed command of the ISAF forces on August 11, 2003, NATO, represented by the then Secretary General Robertson's Organization notified UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan of this post factum by letter dated 2 October 2003. Attached to the letter was NATO's Long-Term Strategy for its role within ISAF. At the same time, the NATO Secretary General kindly promised that he would keep the UN Secretary General “abreast of further developments during the consideration of this issue by the North Atlantic Council.”
NATO in Afghanistan
As an independent actor, NATO began to play a serious role in Afghanistan only in August 2003, when the alliance voluntarily assumed the functions of strategic command, control and coordination of the activities of the International Security Assistance Force for Afghanistan (ISAF).
This decision was a major step for NATO. Alliance involvement in military operation The United States is due to a whole range of reasons. Here we can name the manifestation of solidarity with the United States under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, and assistance in planning and practical implementation of the operation, which NATO military structures from the very beginning of hostilities provided to members of the bloc who decided to fight together with the United States within the framework of the “coalition of the willing”. A huge role was played by the need to preserve the unity of the alliance, which in September 2001 came under threat due to the virtual disregard for NATO by the then American administration.
NATO's desire to be useful to the Americans in Afghanistan did not immediately find understanding in the White House. For almost two years, the American administration preferred to "work" alone, resorting mainly to the help of its closest ally - Great Britain, as well as a number of countries that immediately expressed a desire to help Washington. However, after the overthrow of the Taliban, when the situation relatively stabilized and the need for direct military action disappeared (some of the terrorists of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban were destroyed, some were pushed back into the mountains to the border with Pakistan), and the attention of the White House switched to Iraq (where the Americans invaded in March 2003), the "finest hour" of the alliance has come.
NATO's task at the first stage was to ensure local security in the relatively calm regions of Afghanistan and the gradual expansion of the security zone to the entire country, at the second - to provide conditions for the restoration of the IRA. All this had to take place while maintaining the dominant political role and military control of the United States.
In fact, NATO was assigned a supporting role in clearing the political, economic and humanitarian "blockages" left by the Americans after the hostilities. The Alliance was meant to be a kind of crisis manager leading international efforts for the humanitarian and socio-economic reconstruction of Afghanistan.
It cannot be said that the American interpretation of NATO's role in Afghanistan did not suit the organization. The Alliance was pleased with the situation, when the International Security Assistance Force does not participate in direct military clashes, being more concerned with patrolling and maintaining security in the Afghan provinces, as well as various infrastructure projects.
Meanwhile, it gradually became obvious that the Americans hurried to celebrate the victory over the Taliban, which in 2003-2005. managed to restore his forces, and a new stage of the Afghan campaign began with the active introduction of an insurgent war and subversive activities against NATO forces. The North Atlantic bloc faced a whole range of problems of a military and civilian nature, which led to the fact that "Afghanistan has become a test for the entire alliance." It became more and more difficult for NATO to carry out security tasks even at the local level. Serious problems arose in the sphere of the country's governance and the development of Afghanistan. By taking charge of the peacekeeping operation, NATO overestimated its potential and resources as a crisis manager. The organization faced serious reputational challenges, primarily related to negative consequences erroneous actions of the Americans, leading to the death of an increasing number of civilians. Internal problems arose due to difficulties in relations between European countries and the Bush administration, which used to ignore the interests of Europe in general and the alliance in particular.
Afghanistan showed that NATO was not ready for a guerrilla subversive war. Every year, the societies of European countries understood less and less why Europeans should die in Afghanistan for the illusory idea of democratizing this country. The "small victorious war" initiated by George W. Bush turned into a protracted positional war with the rebels for the US and NATO. Bin Laden could not be caught, Al-Qaeda still functioned and from time to time reminded of itself with terrible terrorist attacks or reports of upcoming terrorist attacks, the Taliban regime was overthrown, but not defeated. Not surprisingly, Afghanistan has become a headache for NATO military and officials.
In addition to the hard-to-solve Afghan problems, a new one has appeared - a seething Pakistan.
Obama's Strategy for Af-Pak
The change in the presidential team in the United States has led to a change in approach not only to Afghanistan, but to the entire region of the Middle East as a whole.
First, in order to achieve main goal United States - the destruction of "al-Qaeda" - it was decided to combine approaches to Afghanistan and Pakistan into one regional strategy. The unified region was named Af-Pak (or Pak-Af). President Obama has increased attention to Pakistan, which, along with Afghanistan, has become the second target of the new US strategy. For the first time, the US administration publicly stated the deep interdependence of the problem of the insurgency in Afghanistan and the activities of extremists in the eastern regions of Pakistan. The US leadership has clearly indicated that from now on "there are no longer two separate lines for Afghanistan and Pakistan." One of the specific instruments of cooperation between Pakistan and Afghanistan was to be regular meetings of their presidents at highest level under the auspices of the United States to exchange information and coordinate actions in the fight against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
Secondly, the official position of the American leadership regarding negotiations with the Taliban has changed (the previous administration completely denied the possibility of such negotiations). In fact, a political amnesty was offered to the so-called moderate Taliban, who were not ideological adherents of Al-Qaeda and were ready to lay down their arms, recognize the Karzai government in Kabul and the constitution and return to civilian life.
Thirdly, a significant increase in the size of the American contingent in Afghanistan was planned.
Fourthly, the emphasis was on the economy. Although Afghanistan cannot be called a rich country, this state has a certain economic potential, associated primarily with the development of minerals, hydropower, the construction of transit communications, and the production of certain types of crops. In this regard, the Obama administration planned to spend about $4.4 billion in 2010 on the creation of socio-economic infrastructure in Afghanistan and northern Pakistan, which was supposed to help attract Afghans to civilian life and narrow the manpower base for al-Qaeda. ".
This strategy was further formalized at the anniversary NATO summit in Kehl/Strasbourg in early April 2009. First, the US administration's announced political amnesty for the moderate Taliban was supported. Secondly, the NATO Training Mission in Afghanistan was created, the task of which is to train the Afghan military and police. This meant that the alliance was counting on the training of its own Afghan security forces, which in the future would have to take full responsibility for the situation in the country, i.e. a gradual "Afghanization" of security was envisaged, the timing of which remained uncertain. The events of summer-early autumn 2010, when a wave of terror from the Taliban, timed to coincide with the presidential elections on August 20, swept Afghanistan, forced the adjustment of the parameters of the "Afghanization" of security. Only on election day, 139 terrorist attacks were committed throughout the country. In August-September, ISAF losses amounted to more than 140 people. The situation escalated to such an extent that Obama ordered a temporary suspension of sending additional troops to Afghanistan. In connection with the significant losses suffered by the US allies during these two months, the number of national contingents dissatisfied with the presence in Afghanistan has sharply increased in Europe. The position of the leading NATO countries and ISAF participants - France, Germany, Italy and even Great Britain - is changing: instead of increasing the military contingent, we are talking about the need to set the start date for the withdrawal of NATO forces from Afghanistan, as well as focus on training the Afghan military and police, for which Afghanistan to send not soldiers, but specialist instructors.
Under these conditions, the Americans had no choice but to accept the position of the European countries, which are striving to determine the terms of withdrawal from Afghanistan as soon as possible. Therefore, already on October 23, 2009, at a meeting of NATO defense ministers, the Strategic Concept for Transition to Afghan Lead was adopted. Moreover, the first steps in this direction were planned to be taken already in the second half of 2010.
The year 2010 clearly demonstrated the flexibility of the American policy in the Afghan direction, which can be characterized as a policy of carrots and sticks. On the one hand, the Obama administration supported program of national reconciliation, approved for international conference on Afghanistan in London (January), and then in Kabul (June), as well as approved by the All-Afghan Peace Jirga (June), which spoke in favor of a "government-opposition model for the further development of Afghan society." In fact, the leadership of Afghanistan, represented by H. Karzai, was given the "green light" to establish contacts with the main figures of the armed opposition and the Taliban movement, information about negotiations with which was repeatedly leaked to the media. On the other hand, the Americans continued to exert military pressure on the Taliban and Al-Qaeda as part of anti-Taliban operations (Moshtarak, February-March 2010, Helmand province, and Shefaf, March-April 2010, northern provinces Afghanistan) and conducted a successful special operation to eliminate the leader of international terrorism, Osama bin Laden.
The main priority inside Afghanistan for ISAF and the United States remains the preparation and training of the Afghan army, police and security forces for the speedy transfer of responsibility for the situation in the country to them. And here specific terms have already been outlined - the process will begin in the summer of 2011 and should be completed by 2014. However, will this be the end of the war?
UN mission
On March 28, 2002, Resolution 1401 established the Afghanistan Assistance Mission headquartered in Kabul (UNAMA). The main tasks of the Mission are monitoring the situation with human rights, gender issues, humanitarian assistance to the development of Afghanistan. The Mission has eight regional offices.
The main function of the Mission representatives is to monitor the situation, as well as to coordinate the implementation of various UN programs and specialized agencies. Based on careful monitoring, annual regular assessment reports of the Secretary-General on the situation in Afghanistan are prepared.
No less valuable information is contained in the reports of specialized UN agencies. In the case of Afghanistan, the statistics of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), which issues reports on the production and distribution of drugs in the country, conducts surveys of peasants, works with aerial photography data, and collects information on the work of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, is of particular value. The reports of this structure are the main source of statistics used by researchers of Afghan drug trafficking.
Another area of work of the UN Mission in Afghanistan is the coordination of food and agricultural programs, monitoring of imports and exports of products. Another major UN project, launched in April 2010, provides food support for 7.3 million Afghans. UN programs are aimed not only at providing food from outside, but also at the effective distribution of food within the region. Among them is the massive purchase of grain from Afghan peasants for the needs of food supply for their compatriots.
An equally difficult area of work is helping Afghan refugees. AT this case work is carried out through the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Assistance is provided to refugees who return to the country from Iran and Pakistan. Winter 2010 - 2011 The Office has launched a cold weather relief program for refugee families in Kabul province. According to the Office, 8 million Afghan citizens have recently returned to the country, who are in a difficult socio-economic situation. The construction of 200,000 residential buildings in Afghanistan for refugees and internally displaced persons returning to their homeland has been organized since 2002. The UN long-term program is being conducted in cooperation with local departments for refugees and repatriation. Since voluntary repatriation became widespread in 2002, the housing program has helped 14 million ex-migrants find a new home in their home country. This number is more than 25 percent of total strength refugees returning to Afghanistan.
Despite the benefits that the UN Mission brings through its activities to ordinary Afghans, the work of its employees is fraught with great danger to life. The degree of danger is determined by the ratio local population to representatives of the international community, which largely depends on the political context and the extreme excitability of the Muslim population of Afghanistan to any informational occasions related to Islam and an attempt to discredit it. Thus, in February 2011, due to the provocative behavior of the American pastor Jones from Florida, who promised to publicly burn the Koran, spontaneous protests took place in Afghanistan and in other countries of the Muslim world. A peaceful demonstration in Mazar-i-Sharif got out of control, the anger of the protesters was directed at the Mission office in this city, as a result of which 12 members of the Mission were killed, while two were beheaded. Such attacks (perhaps not so bloody) occur quite regularly.
NATO
After the overthrow of the Taliban, it became necessary to regulate the process of ensuring security at the local level and rebuilding the country. Therefore, during the first five years of its presence in Afghanistan, the North Atlantic bloc was mainly engaged in expanding its area of responsibility over the entire territory of this country, ensuring security during the first parliamentary and presidential elections, as well as developing infrastructure socio-economic projects.
To this end, the alliance has developed a general political strategy for Afghanistan, which was based on the triad: security, management and development. However, time has shown that the NATO strategy towards Afghanistan cannot be fully implemented, because two of its three components (management and development) are civilian in nature and the alliance does not have sufficient experience and skills to implement them. Only one of the three components - security - corresponds to the competence of NATO, and its provision by ISAF under the auspices of the alliance raises many questions and complaints. As for the construction of civil institutions and the socio-economic development of the country, they should be carried out not by NATO, but by international structures, and the task of the alliance is to provide appropriate security conditions for their implementation. Afghanistan has shown that NATO, neither by its nature nor by its functional, professional and ideological readiness, is in a position to engage in complex post-peacekeeping.
It is curious that as the situation in Afghanistan worsened, gradually realizing the limitations of their potential in terms of the socio-economic recovery and democratic development of this country, first the United States, then NATO began to increasingly raise the issue of globalization the Afghan campaign, the involvement of other regional players in the solution of the Afghan problem.
Today, NATO sees the training of Afghan police and soldiers as its main task in Afghanistan. To this end, a special NATO Training Mission was created, within which ISAF trains Afghan personnel. The implementation of this task is necessary for the alliance in order to begin a gradual withdrawal of its forces from the country.
The activity of the European Union as an organization in Afghanistan is mainly limited to financial and partly political participation.
The first financial assistance to Kabul from the EU dates back to the 1980s. At that time, European countries actively sponsored Afghanistan through their office in Peshawar (Pakistan). After the withdrawal of Soviet troops, an EU office was opened in Kabul. Today, the EU has its own Special Representative in Afghanistan. From 2002 to 2010 EU financial assistance amounted to about 8 billion euros. In 2011–2013 it is planned to allocate 600 million euros for development programs in Afghanistan. At the same time, the key problem remains the efficiency of the use of these funds and corruption among Afghan officials and Western contractors.
The political significance of the EU in the life of Afghanistan comes down to participation in the construction of Afghan democracy, including through the legitimization of the Afghan presidential and parliamentary elections. In 2004, the European Commission provided 22.5 million euros for the presidential elections in Afghanistan. “The European Union considers elections, presidential and parliamentary, of course, as one of the main tools for strengthening the country's developing state and civil institutions. In the context of statements about the gradual curtailment of military activity in Afghanistan and the transfer of the functions of ensuring order and security to local authorities, the importance of holding elections as a whole is very difficult to overestimate.
Loading...