On the place of Russia in the modern world. The role of Russia in the modern world. Choice of ways for the development of Russia from the point of view of Russians

  * This work is not a scientific work, is not a final qualification work and is the result of processing, structuring and formatting of the collected information intended for use as a source of material for independent preparation of educational works.

Introduction

1. General characteristics of the role of Russia in the global community of states

2. National Security

2.1. National interests

3. The contradiction of the interests of Russia and Western countries

4. The choice of development paths of Russia from the point of view of Russians

Conclusion

List of references

INTRODUCTION

The country's role in the global community of states is determined by its economic, scientific, technical, military, and cultural potentials. The deep foundation of the country's international role is its geopolitical position. The geopolitical position of the country is associated with the peculiarities of its location on the geographical map of the world, the size of the territory, the availability of natural resources, climatic conditions, soil fertility and condition, the number and density of the population, the length, convenience and arrangement of borders. Of particular importance is the presence or absence of access to the oceans, the ease or, on the contrary, the difficulty of such exits, as well as the average distance from the main centers of the country to the sea coast. The political aspect of the concept of geopolitical position is most clearly manifested in the relation (friendly or unfriendly) to this country from other countries of the world community, in the level of its international authority.

The process of the formation of Russia's foreign policy is taking place against the backdrop of dynamic, global transformations that formulate the world order. Modern international relations are both interstate and transnational in nature.

In my work, I will try to answer the following questions: what influences the process of formation of Russia's foreign and domestic policy? What are the main threats to Russia's national security? How does the country's geopolitical position affect the state’s economy? Which development path for Russia is supported by most citizens of the Russian Federation?

1. GENERAL CHARACTERISTIC OF THE ROLE OF RUSSIA IN THE WORLD COMMUNITY OF STATES

The collapse of the USSR led to significant changes in the geopolitical alignment of international forces. These changes are generally unfavorable for Russia (which, of course, does not automatically mean a demand for a return to the previous situation): its geopolitical opportunities have been reduced in comparison with the Soviet Union. Domestic geopolitician N.A. Nartov provides a comprehensive list of geopolitical losses associated with the collapse of the USSR. Among such losses: a significant loss of access to the Baltic and the Black Sea; in terms of resources, the shelves of the Black, Caspian, Baltic Seas are lost; with the reduction of the territory, the length of the borders increased, in addition, Russia received new, undeveloped borders. The population of the modern Russian Federation and the occupied area in comparison with the USSR has decreased approximately twice. Direct land access to Central and Western Europe was also lost, as a result of which Russia was cut off from Europe, now having no direct borders with Poland, Slovakia or Romania, which the Soviet Union had. Therefore, in a geopolitical sense, the distance between Russia and Europe has increased, since the number of state borders that must be crossed on the way to Europe has increased. As a result of the collapse of the USSR, Russia appeared to be pushed to the north-east, that is, to a certain extent, it lost the possibility of a direct influence on the state of affairs not only in Europe but also in Asia, which the Soviet Union had.

Speaking about the economic potential, it should be noted that the role of the Russian economy in the world economy is not very small. It is not comparable not only with the role of the United States, Western Europe, Japan and China, but is inferior (or approximately equal) to the role of countries such as Brazil, India, Indonesia and several others. Thus, the depreciation of the ruble (as well as its growth) has almost no effect on the exchange rates of leading world currencies; stock prices of the largest Russian companies have little effect on the state of the world market, just as the ruin of Russian banks and enterprises does not significantly affect it. In general, the situation in Russia, its deterioration or improvement objectively little affect the world community. The main thing that can cause concern for the world community from the point of view of the impact on the world as a whole is the presence of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction (primarily chemical) in Russia, or rather, the possibility of losing control over it. The world community cannot but be concerned about the possibility of such a situation when nuclear arsenals and delivery vehicles fall into the hands of political adventurers, radicals, or international terrorists. If we exclude nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction, then, on the whole, Russia's military role in the world is also small. The fall in military influence was promoted by the inept implementation of military reform, the decline in military spirit in a number of units and subunits, the weakening of the technical and financial support of the army and navy, and the decline in the prestige of the military profession. The political significance of Russia is closely dependent on the economic and other aspects mentioned above.

Thus, the relatively insignificant objective role of Russia in the world of the late 90s of the XX century. - the beginning of the first decade of the XXI century. does not allow to hope that because of her special situation the whole world will help her.

Indeed, it cannot be denied that some assistance was provided by both governmental and non-governmental organizations in a number of Western countries. However, it was dictated by strategic security considerations, mainly in the sense of control over Russian weapons of mass destruction, as well as humanitarian motives. As for financial loans from international financial organizations and the governments of rich countries, they were built and continue to be built on a purely commercial basis.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, a change in the international situation of a qualitative nature took place. In fact, the world has entered a fundamentally new period of history. The collapse of the Soviet Union signaled the end of the confrontation between two opposing social systems - the "capitalist" and "socialist". This confrontation has determined the basic features of the international climate for several decades. The world existed in a bipolar dimension. One pole was represented by the Soviet Union and satellite countries, the other by the United States and its allies. The confrontation of the two poles (two opposing socio-political systems) left its mark on all sides of international relations, determined the mutual relations of all countries, forcing them to make a choice between the two systems.

The collapse of the bipolar system gave rise to hopes for the creation of a fundamentally new system of international relations, in which the principles of equality, cooperation, and mutual assistance should become decisive. The idea of ​​a multi-pole (or multi-polar) world has become popular. This idea provides for real pluralism in the field of international relations, that is, the presence on the world stage of many independent centers of influence. One of such centers could be developed in economic, scientific, technical and other respects Russia. However, with all the attractiveness of the idea of ​​multipolarity, today it is far from practical implementation. It should be recognized that today the world is becoming more and more unipolar. The United States of America has become the most powerful center of international influence. This country can rightfully be considered the only superpower of the modern world. Both Japan, and China, and even the united Western Europe are inferior to the United States in terms of financial, industrial, scientific, technical, and military potential. This potential ultimately determines the colossal international role of America, its influence on all aspects of international relations. Under the control of the United States are all major international organizations, and in the 1990s, through NATO, the United States began to supplant even such an influential organization as the United Nations.

Modern domestic experts - political scientists and geopolitics - are unanimous, believing that the world that has developed after the collapse of the USSR has become monopolar. However, they disagree on how it will or should be in the future. There are several points of view regarding the prospects of the world community. One of them suggests that in the not too distant future, the world will nevertheless become at least tripolar. These are the USA, the European Union and Japan. In terms of economic potential, Japan is not so far behind America, and overcoming monetary and economic disunity within the EU will also make it an important counterweight to the United States.

Another point of view is most clearly presented in the book "Fundamentals of Geopolitics" by Alexander Dugin. Dugin believes that in the near future, the world should again become bipolar, gain a new bipolarity. From the positions advocated by this author, only the formation of a new pole led by Russia will create the conditions for real opposition to the United States and its most faithful ally to the United Kingdom.

Two important conclusions follow from this situation, which are shared by many Russian politicians and political scientists. Firstly, Russia (like most countries of the modern world) should strive to establish and maintain normal, non-confrontational relations with the United States and, without prejudice to its national interests, expand cooperation and interaction in various fields, if possible. Secondly, together with other countries, Russia is called upon to limit America’s omnipotence, to prevent the solution of the most important international issues to become the monopoly of the United States and a limited circle of its allies.

The task of rebuilding Russia as one of the centers of the modern world is not dictated by state and national ambition, nor by claims to an exclusive world role. This is a task of vital necessity, a task of self-preservation. For a country with such geopolitical characteristics as Russia has, the question has always stood and continues to stand like this: either to be one of the centers of world civilization, or to be divided into several parts and, therefore, get off the world map as an independent and integral state. One of the grounds for raising the question on the principle of "either - or" is the factor of vastness of the Russian territory. In order to preserve such a territory in integrity and integrity, a country must be sufficiently powerful internationally. Russia cannot afford what is perfectly acceptable for geographically small countries, such as most countries in Europe (with the exception of Great Britain, France and Germany). Russia faces an alternative: either continue to uphold the significance of its world role, therefore, strive to maintain its territorial integrity, or be divided into several independent states, formed, for example, in the territories of the current Far East, Siberia and the European part of Russia. The first option would leave for Russia the possibility of a gradual exit from the current crisis state. The second, unambiguously and forever, would doom the “fragments” of the former Russia to complete dependence on the largest centers of the modern world: the USA, Western Europe, Japan, and China. Consequently, for the “fragmentation states", if such were to replace modern Russia, there would be only one way - the path of eternally dependent existence, which would mean poverty and extinction of the population. We emphasize that with an inept leadership policy a similar path was not ordered for a holistic Russia. However, maintaining integrity and an appropriate global role leaves the country a fundamental chance for future prosperity.

Another factor in raising the question of self-preservation in an alternative plane is determined for Russia by the population and other demographic indicators, such as age composition, health, level of education, etc. Russia remains one of the largest countries in the modern world in terms of population, significantly second only to China, India, USA. The preservation and growth of the population, the improvement of its qualitative composition are directly determined by the integrity of the Russian state and the strength of its position in the international arena. The strength of the international situation for Russia means strengthening its status as a great power, its position as one of the independent world centers. This is due, in particular, to the fact that Russia is surrounded by a number of states suffering from overpopulation. These include countries such as Japan and China, partly the southern republics of the former Soviet Union. Resisting demographic pressure from overpopulated neighboring countries can only be a powerful state that is able to independently stand up for itself without outside help.

Finally, the struggle to maintain and strengthen Russia's status as one of the great powers, one of the most important centers of world development, is tantamount to a struggle to maintain its own civilized foundations. The task of preserving and maintaining civilized foundations, on the one hand, summarizes all the factors that determine for Russia the need to be one of the great powers, one of the independent centers of world development. On the other hand, it adds to these factors a very substantial new content.

2. NATIONAL SECURITY

National security is the provision by the government of a state of protection of citizens of a given state against possible threats, the maintenance of conditions for the development and prosperity of the country. Here the concept of "national" is formed from the concept of nation as a combination of citizens of the state, regardless of their ethnic or other affiliation.

At all times, national security had a predominantly military aspect and was provided mainly by military means. In total, one can probably count more than a dozen fundamental components of supporting the NB in ​​the new era: political, economic, financial, technological, information and communication, food, environmental (including a wide range of problems associated with the existence of nuclear energy), ethnic, demographic, ideological, cultural, psychological, etc.

What are the main threats to Russia's national security?

First of all, such as disorganization of the national economy, economic and technological blockade, food vulnerability.

The disorganization of the national economy can occur under the influence of the targeted impact of the economic policies of the leading powers of the modern world or groups of such powers. It can also occur as a result of the actions of international corporations, as well as international political extremists. Finally, it can arise as a result of a spontaneous combination of circumstances on the world market, as well as the actions of international financial adventurers. The threat of an economic blockade arises for Russia due to the openness of its economy. Russia's economy is most dependent on imports. Stopping imports by imposing an embargo on certain types of goods will inevitably put the country in a quandary. The introduction of a full-scale economic blockade would lead to economic collapse.

The threat of technological blockade also arises as a result of the country's involvement in the world market. In this case, we are talking about the technology market. On its own, Russia is able to solve the problem of providing modern technologies only in certain areas of production, in certain areas of scientific and technological progress. These are the areas and directions in which there are world-class achievements. These include aviation and space technology, nuclear power, many military technologies and weapons, and a number of others. Today, Russia is almost completely dependent on imports of computer equipment, primarily personal computers. At the same time, it is important to keep in mind that it is economically unprofitable to catch up, trying to establish its own production of computer equipment for its own projects. The situation is the same in the field of many other technologies, where today there are no world-class achievements.

Russia's food vulnerability is determined by dependence on foreign food imports. The level of imported products at 30% of their total volume is considered critical for the country's food independence. Meanwhile, in large cities of Russia, he has already exceeded this mark. A significant share of imports and finished food products. Obviously, even a slight reduction in food imports would put a multi-million city in the face of complex problems, and its complete cessation would be fraught with catastrophe.

2.1. National interests

The concept of national security indicates the minimum level of security of the country, which is necessary for its independence, sovereign existence. Therefore, it is organically supplemented by the concept of "national interests." National interests are the specific interests of a given country, that is, the totality of its citizens, in the international arena. The specificity of the national interests of a country is determined, first of all, by its geopolitical position. Ensuring national interests should be the main goal of the state’s foreign policy. The whole set of national interests is classified according to the degree of their importance. There are primary interests and interests of lesser importance.

In turn, the concept of "sphere of national interests" is closely connected with the concept of national interests. It denotes those regions of the world which, due to the geopolitical position of a given country, have special significance for it and the political, economic and military situation in which they directly affect the internal situation in a given country. The areas of primary interests of Russia have always been such regions as Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans, the Middle and Far East. In post-perestroika Russia, the countries of the near abroad, that is, independent states that arose on the site of the republics of the former Soviet Union, were added to these regions.

It should be borne in mind that the task of upholding certain principles is no less important for foreign policy than the task of ensuring national interests. Foreign policy, focused on naked interest, inevitably becomes an unprincipled policy, turns the country into an international pirate, undermines the credibility of other countries, escalating international tension.

3. CONTRADICTION OF INTERESTS OF RUSSIA AND THE COUNTRIES OF THE WEST

Being countries of the sea or Atlantic, the countries of the West, primarily the United States and Great Britain, are interested in the maximum openness of the world market, in the maximum freedom of world trade. Accessibility and ease of access to the oceans, the relatively small length of the sea routes, the proximity of major economic centers to the coast make the openness of the world market as beneficial for maritime countries. With a fully open world trade market, a continental country (such as Russia) will always be a loser, primarily because shipping by sea is much cheaper than land and air, and also because all transportation in the case of pronounced continentality is longer than when the country is marine. These factors determine the higher cost of all goods within the continental country, which hurts the material well-being of the citizens of this country. Domestic producers, whose products are not able to withstand competition in the world market, are also at a disadvantage, because they will always be more expensive due to the high cost of transportation. The exception is those products that can be transported through pipelines - this is oil and gas or electricity transmitted by wire. Continentality and the difficulties associated with its integration into the world market do not mean, however, that Russia's economic policy should be insulating. But Russia cannot and should not follow the path that is not economically profitable for it, no matter how much it is inclined to take such a path. It must, therefore, pursue an extremely flexible foreign economic policy, combining the forms of open market relations with the methods of developing the domestic market and protecting domestic producers.

The contradiction between the interests of Russia and the Western countries is also due to the fact that Russia is one of the world's largest producers and exporters of oil and gas, while Western countries are importers of these products. Russia is interested in high world prices for oil and gas, while Western countries are interested in the opposite - in lower prices. In the global market for military technologies and weapons, fierce competition is constantly taking place, primarily between Russia and the United States. The collapse of the USSR and the weakening of Russia led to a reduction in the Russian market for military technologies and armaments compared with the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, the sale of Kalashnikov assault rifles alone — not to mention more complex products, such as military aircraft or tanks — is capable of bringing multimillion-dollar profits to Russia. Of course, we can talk about the sale of military products only on a completely legal basis and in accordance with the rules of international trade.

All the factors mentioned above unequivocally indicate that Russia needs an international counterweight in order to resist monopoly control by the United States and Great Britain over all spheres of world life, over all regions of the planet. At the same time, it should be especially emphasized that Russia is interested in establishing smooth and stable relations with all countries of the world. She is also interested in expanding a wide variety of contacts with the largest possible number of international partners. At the same time, its international policy should highlight the priorities, primarily due to the country's geopolitical position. One of the most important priorities is the creation of a counterweight to the absolute hegemony of the United States and its strategic ally of Great Britain in the international arena.

4. CHOICE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF RUSSIA FROM THE RUSSIANS 'POINT OF VIEW

The views of the older generation on the possible ways of development of Russia are significantly different from the views of young people. About a third of the respondents would like to see Russia a strong power, respecting other states (36%) and a democratic state based on the principle of economic freedom (32%).

As a state of social justice like the USSR, representatives of the older generation see Russia in the future almost three times more often than the youth (25% versus 9% in the main group). Finally, a state based on national traditions is favored by 12% of respondents over 40 years old.

Nearly half of young people (47.5%) would like to see Russia in the near future a strong power causing awe and respect from other states (Table 1) - without specifying the type of socio-economic structure. This share exceeds 50% among employees of the sphere of management, entrepreneurs, schoolchildren, the unemployed, military personnel and employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs.

A slightly smaller proportion of young people (42%) would like to live in Russia, which is a democratic state built on the principles of economic freedom (like the USA, Germany, Japan).

Much less often, preference is given to the development of Russia along the path of the state of social justice, where the power belongs to the working people (like the USSR) - 9%. At the same time, engineers and technical workers, vocational school students, military personnel and employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (15-20%) choose this option more often than others. Finally, only 7.5% of respondents want to see a state based on national traditions, on the ideals of restored Orthodoxy Russia.

An analysis of the dynamics of young people's ideas about the desired near future of Russia (table 2) makes it possible to note the fairly rapid and consistent growth in the last 4 years of the share of respondents in favor of a strong power causing awe and respect from other states - from 25% in spring 1998 to 47.5 %

Note that the 1998 financial crisis led to a sharp decline in the attractiveness of a democratic state based on the principle of economic freedom (from 54% to 34%). At the same time, the desire to return to the Soviet-style social justice state increased (from 20% to 32%). Already in the spring of 2000, the state of social justice lost its appeal (and, it seems, a very long time), but the attractiveness of development along the path of a democratic state did not reach the level of spring 1998.

Regional differences in the views of young people on the desired future of Russia are very large - the residents of the Novgorod region stand out, clearly preferring the democratic state.

Among young Novgorodians, half of the respondents (50% against 36.5% -38% in the Vladimir region and in the Republic of Bashkortostan) are in favor of developing Russia along the path of a democratic state. Much less frequently than others, young residents of the Novgorod region want to see Russia as a strong power that causes trepidation in other states (38% vs. 47.5% on average in the main group).

The views of Vladimirtsev and the people of the Republic of Bashkortostan are very similar to the future of Russia. The latter more often than others would like to see Russia as a state of social justice (11% versus 9% on average).

Russia's development along the path of a democratic state continues to be preferable compared to moving along the path of a strong militarized power in large cities (46% versus 43%), noticeably losing first place in the outback (33% versus 58%).

More often than others, Yabloko’s supporters would like to see Russia as a democratic state of economic freedom (57% vs. 42% on average in the sample). About half of the supporters of United Russia and respondents who deny the positive influence of any party on the development of the situation (49-50% against 47.5% on average) are in favor of a strong power that awe other countries. Supporters of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation are three times more likely (31%) than the average in the sample would like to see Russia as a state of social justice, but even they still more often choose a strong power (41%). The choice in favor of the state of national traditions practically does not depend on the support of any party and varies in insignificant limits - from 7% to 9%.

The respondents were asked a question, the culture and lifestyle of which countries they consider the most acceptable for modern Russia (table 3).

A rather large proportion of young people - more than a third of respondents (35%) - believe that foreign influence on the culture and life of Russians should be excluded, Russia has its own way. More often (43%) this opinion is shared by the older generation. The preferences of respondents in relation to different countries were distributed as follows (first five):

With regional comparison, it is noticeable that isolationist sentiments are much less common in young Vladimirtsevs (27%), and more often than others in residents of Bashkortostan (41.5%).

Representatives of different regions are not so great in the choice of countries whose culture and lifestyle are most acceptable to Russia. It may be noted that Vladimirtsy choose Germany more often than others, and Novgorodians choose France and the UK.

The culture and style of the countries of the Muslim world are not very attractive even for the Bashkirs living in Bashkortostan (3%) and the Tatars (7%). It is also interesting that more often than others, the Russians of Bashkortostan speak for the need to exclude foreign influence on the culture of Russia (48% versus 41% of Bashkirs and 30% of Tatars).

When considering the dynamics of youth preferences on this issue (Table 4), one can note a rather sharp jump in comparison with 2000 of isolationist sentiments (from 27% to 35% now). This, in general, corresponds to an increase in the share of respondents who want to see Russia as a strong power, inspiring awe and respect for other countries.

Obviously, the decline in the share of respondents who express sympathy for the UK and, especially, France. Germany is constantly chosen by about a quarter of the respondents, and the share of respondents singling out the United States, having decreased during 2000, remains at a constant level after that.

Adherents of Russia as a democratic state, built on the principles of economic freedom, are characterized by isolationism less often than supporters of other development paths (23% vs. 35% on average in the main group). All Western countries attract this part of young people more often than other respondents. The United States is the most popular - 27% (even slightly more than Germany) versus 20% on average.

Young people who want to see Russia as a state of social justice like the USSR, more often than others express their sympathies to China (9% vs. 4% on average).

The greatest isolationists, which seems quite natural, are adherents of a state based on national traditions (60%), as well as supporters of a strong power that arouses awe and respect in other states (42% vs. 35% on average in the sample). These two categories of youth are less likely than others to sympathize with the United States (13% and 15%, respectively), and supporters of the state of social justice - Germany (17%).

So, the development of Russia along the path of a strong power, which arouses awe and respect in other states, becomes the most popular, outpacing the development along the path of a democratic state (47% against 42%). The return to the state of social justice, where the power belongs to the working people (like the USSR) is much less popular (9%), as is the creation of a national state based on the traditions of Orthodoxy (8%).

Nevertheless, more than a third of respondents (35%) believe that foreign influence on the culture and life of Russians should be excluded, Russia has its own way. More often (43%) this opinion is shared by the older generation.

One of the attributes of a strong power, which arouses awe and respect from other states (and almost half of the respondents want to see such a Russia), is a powerful army armed with modern weapons. In which cases the respondents consider the use of military force in the modern world as permissible (Table 6).

Every eighth respondent (13%) believes that the use of military force can not be justified by anything. A year ago, opponents of the use of military force in any situation were noticeably less - 7.5% (research "Youth and military conflicts").

Only in two cases more than half of young people justify the use of military force:

Reflection of external aggression (69%)

Fight against world terrorism (58%).

The representatives of the older generation also consider the same (73% and 54% respectively).

Approximately the same picture was observed a year ago, then the use of force in the aggression against Russia was supported by 72% of respondents, and for the fight against world terrorism - 62%.

In all other cases, there are far fewer supporters who justify the use of military force. In third place with a large margin is the help to the allies in the aggression against them (19.5%), while the older generation is ready to help the Allied states two times less (9%).

Every sixth respondent (17%) permits the use of armed forces to resolve socio-political and national conflicts within the country, which cannot be resolved by peaceful means. Again, representatives of the control group agree with this much less frequently (9%).

All other cases of possible cases of use of military force - the implementation of international peacekeeping operations, the protection of the rights of citizens of the Russian Federation abroad, the expansion of Russia's influence in the world, assistance to other states in solving their internal problems - find even less understanding among young people (8-12%).

The residents of Vladimir more often than others are ready to justify the use of military force in repelling external aggression (80% against 69% on average in the main group), to help the allies with aggression against them (31% compared to 19.5% on average) and to resolve conflicts inside the country, who cannot be settled peacefully (22% vs. 17% on average) Young residents of the Republic of Bashkortostan are slightly more likely to take pacifist positions (16% against 13% on average), less often others are willing to put up with the use of the army in internal conflicts (14% against 17% on average) and, more often, respondents living in other regions are in favor of armed protection of the rights of Russian citizens abroad (12.5% ​​against 11% on average).

In assessing the acceptability of the use of military force, the Novgorodians put the fight against world terrorism in the first place, pushing even the reflection of external aggression (62% and 61% respectively) to the second.

Young people who consider themselves patriots, often non-patriotic respondents, allow the use of military force to repel external aggression (respectively 77% versus 56%), to help allied states in the event of aggression against them (24% versus 11%).

In turn, respondents who do not consider themselves patriots, one and a half times more often point out that the use of military force in the modern world cannot be justified by anything (15% vs. 10% of patriots), and also more often allow the use of armed forces to combat world terrorism.

Research conducted by the "Central Russian Consulting Center" in 2007

CONCLUSION

So, in my work I reflected the prospects for the development of the Russian Federation in the modern world. One of the most difficult domestic problems of Russia, determining the choice of its behavior in the world geopolitical arena, is the incompleteness of the formation of the modern state system. The struggle continues to determine the priorities of national interests.

Strengthening the integration of the Russian state space is imperative. However, this task is difficult, since the "state mass" of Russia is very heterogeneous - within Russia you can find a wide choice of socio-economic regions of different levels of development and different ethnic and cultural composition. At the same time, the natural mechanism of market forces, which is able to solder this space into a single economic organism, on the basis of which an integrated internal geopolitical potential could emerge, did not work in full force, and it would take many years to form a civilized market.

The historical traditions of Russia's foreign policy have been shaped for centuries under the influence of its Eurasian position, and they had a multi-vector character. The country's involvement in the system of international relations has only objectively made it a great power, but has repeatedly confronted the need to determine the optimal balance between the volume of international obligations of the state and the material resources that they should provide.

Russia is at the beginning of the process of forming a new model of statehood, experiencing the hardest shocks that inevitably arise after the collapse of the USSR. The formation of the Russian state coincided with a transitional era, a change in the system of international relations. Hence the inconsistency and distortions in foreign policy practice and the complex process of developing a new identity, the need for constant coordination and clarification of positions in accordance with the rapidly changing international situation.

An analysis of the dynamics of young people's ideas about the desired near future of Russia makes it possible to note the fairly rapid and consistent growth in the last 4 years of the share of respondents in favor of a strong power causing awe and respect from other states.

LIST OF USED LITERATURE SOURCES

1. Bezborodov, A.B. Domestic history of modern times / A.B. Bezborodov. - M .: RGGU, 2007. - 804 p.

2. Bedritsky, A.V. Empire and civilization / A.V. Bedritsky // Russian geopolitical collection. - 1998. - №3. - p.22-24.

3. Kolosov, V.A. Geopolitics and political geography / V.A. Kolosov. - M .: Aspect, 2001. - 479 p.

4. Sidorkina, T.Yu. Two centuries of social policy / T.Yu. Sidorkin. - M .: RGGU, 2005. - 442 p.

5. Shapovalov, V.F. Russian Studies / V.F. Shapovalov. - M .: FAIR-PRESS, 2001. - 576 p.

The place of the country in the modern world is determined by the combination of political, economic, social and cultural indicators.

Russia's place among other countries of the world

The place of a country in history or among modern states is determined by many factors - military victories, great creations in the field of art, economic, sporting or space achievements, etc. One of them is the military-patriotic factor. The world greatly respects the nations that have managed to defend their independence, to win in the fight against a superior enemy. In this sense, Russia is a unique example of how people have defended their territory for a thousand years (and today, as you know, it is the largest in the world). Our military past, victories over the strongest powers of the world are admired by most people on the planet.

Additional reading
Victory warriors have always been an example of the patriotism of our people. Russia for centuries had to fight on their lands. The field that fed the Russian man became the site of the battle. The history of the country included three great battlefields of Russia, on which famous historical battles took place: Kulikovskaya (1380), Borodino (1812), Prokhorovsky battle (1943). Victory in the battle on the Kulikovo field against the troops of the Golden Horde brought the soldiers led by Prince Dmitry Donskoy. On the Borodino field, Russian soldiers and officers led by Field Marshal Mikhail Kutuzov fought with French troops. The Battle of Kursk and the Prokhorov Tank Battle were a turning point in the history of the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945.
The great people's feat and great love for their native land are united in these sacred places, filling the heart of a true citizen with pride in Russia. Today, there are open state military-historical museums, reserves and museums of military glory.

Using materials encyclopedias, prepare an oral story about the battle that took place in one of the battlefields of Russia.

A significant role is played by achievements in science, culture and art. Russia gave the world brilliant artists, composers and musicians, scientists and engineers, cosmonauts and inventors, geographers and travelers, architects and philosophers, writers and poets, whose achievements are included in all the textbooks of the world and are included in the golden fund of humanity.

The influence of Russian culture on world culture is well known. Creativity A.S. Pushkin, L.N. Tolstoy, F.M. Dostoevsky, K.S. Stanislavsky, F.I. Shalyapin, DD Shostakovich, PI Tchaikovsky is inscribed in golden letters in world culture. Do not forget about our scientific and technical talents - M.V. Lomonosov, D.I. Mendeleev, A.S. Popov, I.I. Sikorsky, K.E. Tsiolkovsky, S.P. Korolev and others, the results of which labor has long become the property of all mankind.

The Nobel Prize is the most prestigious prize in the world in the fields of physics, chemistry, physiology and medicine, economics, as well as literature and peacemaking between nations, awarded for outstanding scientific research, revolutionary inventions or a major contribution to the culture or development of society. Russia has a reason to be proud of its science and culture. The general list of Soviet and Russian Nobel laureates consists of more than twenty names. Of these, 10 - in physics.

Interesting Facts
The Nobel Prize winners were:

• 1904 - Ivan Pavlov (physiology and medicine);
• 1908 - Ilya Mechnikov (physiology and medicine);
• 1933 - Ivan Bunin (literature);
• 1956 - Nikolay Semenov (chemistry);
• 1958 - Pavel Cherenkov, Ilya Frank, Igor Tamm (physics);
• 1958 - Boris Pasternak (literature);
• 1962 - Lev Landau (physics);
• 1964 - Nikolay Basov, Alexander Prokhorov (physics);
• 1965 - Mikhail Sholokhov (literature);
• 1970 - Alexander Solzhenitsyn (literature);
• 1975 - Andrei Sakharov (Peace Prize);
• 1975 - Leonid Kantorovich (economy);
• 1978 - Peter Kapitsa (physics);
• 1987 - Joseph Brodsky (literature);
• 1990 - Mikhail Gorbachev (Peace Prize);
• 2000 - Zhores Alferov (physics);
• 2003 - Vitaly Ginzburg, Alexey Abrikosov (physics). Another Nobel laureate related to Russia is Ilya Prigogine. He received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1977. In 2010, this award was given to the creation of graphene by two immigrants from Russia - Konstantin Novoselov and Andrei Geim. Graphene is a form of a carbon film one atom wide.

What helps to strengthen the authority and influence of our country in the world

The current generation of Russians, continuing the traditions of their ancestors, strengthens the country's global prestige.

Our country only in the last decades presented the world with a galaxy of outstanding opera singers - these are Galina Vishnevskaya, Elena Obraztsova, Irina Arkhipova, and from the young generation Anna Netrebko, Maria Guleghina, Dmitry Hvorostovsky and others.

The world famous names of outstanding conductors and musicians of Russia of the XX - beginning of the XXI century - Evgeny Mravinsky, Evgeny Svetlanov, Yuri Temirkanov, Mstislav Rostropovich, Sviatoslav Richter, Valery Gergiev, Vladimir Spivakov, Pavel Kogan, Yuri Bashmet, Denis Matsuev, etc.

The productions of Russian theater directors (Georgiy Tovstonogov, Boris Pokrovsky, Yuri Lyubimov) were included in the treasury of world art.

What do you know about the works of M. Rostropovich and G. Vishnevskaya (1), E. Maximova and V. Vasilyev (2), E. Svetlanov (e), V. Spivakova (4), D. Hvorostovsky (5)?

The Russian ballet and its leading performers performing in the 20th century - Anna Pavlova, Galina Ulanova, Olga Lepeshinskaya, Maris Liepa, Ekaterina Maksimova, Vladimir Vasilyev, Rudolf Nureyev, Maya Plisetskaya, and performing today - Ulyana Lopatkina, Diana Vishneva, Nikolay Tsisk-ridze and others

We are proud of our sporting achievements. The world famous names of the greatest athletes - Vladislav Tretiak, Vyacheslav Fetisov, Irina Rodnina, Elena Vyalbe, Alexei Yagudin, Yevgeny Plushenko and many others who glorified our country became a symbol of courage and desire to win in a fair game. The Soviet school is considered to be the best school of pair figure skating in the world, and now the Russian school - a series of Olympic victories by figure skaters of the USSR and Russia continued for several decades. (Which skaters can you name?) Russian figure skating coaches are considered to be among the best in the world.

Your grandparents remember the Olimpiad-80 in Moscow and the brilliant performance of our athletes. For over 30 years Russia, the largest country in the world, has not hosted a single Olympiad. And at the solemn ceremony in Guatemala, Russia signed a contract with the International Olympic Committee to host the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi. And later, the world community entrusted us to organize the 2018 FIFA World Cup.

Russian culture is a truly world-class culture, retaining its attractive force for other countries and peoples.

According to American doctors, the level of medical surgery in Russia, especially in the field of cardiology, is the highest in the world. Outstanding cardiologist Leo Bokeria, Director of the Scientific Center for Cardiovascular Surgery. A.N. Bakuleva, for the first time in Russia, performed an artificial heart transplant operation on an elderly sick woman.

Successes in the field of cardiology are comparable with the cosmic achievements of our country. Russia is a great cosmic power, the first to launch an artificial satellite of the Earth and to send a man into space. In 2011, the whole world celebrated the 50th anniversary of the first manned flight into space, our compatriot Yuri Alekseevich Gagarin.

On Earth, there are no more than 5-7 countries that can compete with Russia in all of these indicators - the USA, China, Germany, Great Britain, France. They are called great powers.

Russia as part of the global community

Russia is a part of the world community, which means that it lives in the appropriate legal space. Our country respects international law and has signed the most important international documents, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, etc.

The national interests of the Russian Federation in the international sphere require an active foreign policy course aimed at strengthening the position of Russia as a great power - one of the most influential centers of the world. The world powers consider Russia to be their partner and are attracted to participate in joint actions to strengthen international security.

Our country participates in various international organizations - the United Nations, the UN Security Council, the International Monetary Fund, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and others.

The recognition of Russia as the most important role in ensuring international security was confirmed in the activities of the Russia-NATO Council (NATO is the world's largest military-political bloc of the countries of Europe, the USA and Canada). Joint events of representatives of the armies of NATO countries and Russia, especially those related to anti-terrorism activities, have become traditional.

The Russian armed forces play an important role in the fight against international terrorism. Our country has initiated the formation under the UN auspices of a global system of countering terrorism. Russian military personnel perform peacekeeping functions as part of UN forces; independently, in the form of military contingents and military observers. The results of Russia's peacekeeping operations have received UN approval as the most successful in recent decades.

You know that our country has a huge natural potential, which automatically gives it a significant place in the development of the world economy. Russia is the leading supplier of energy to many countries in Europe and Asia.

Russia is also strengthening its status as a great maritime power, enhancing the combat power of the Navy. Today, military shipbuilding is successfully developing, new warships, submarines and auxiliary ships are being built and put into operation. All this, of course, serves to enhance the authority of the fleet, to strengthen the status of Russia as a great maritime power.

Let's sum up
Our country occupies an honorable place in the world community. She became famous in the field of military affairs, art and science, space travel, sports. People around the world treat it with respect and consider it a great power.

Test your knowledge

1. What factors determine the place of the country in the modern world?
2. Explain how the activities of specific people can contribute to the country's global authority.
3. What facts confirm that Russia is a great power?

Practical work

1. Select materials for the school wall newspaper "Outstanding People of Russia" on the activities of an outstanding Russian (optional). Use additional literature, encyclopedias, the Internet.
2. It often happens that the name of the street (square) where your school or your home is located is named after the person who contributed to the prosperity of Russia. Learn about this person and write a message.
3. Do you agree with the following statement by A.S. Pushkin: “I am far from admiring everything that I see around me; as a writer, I am grieved ... but I swear on my honor - for no reason in the world would I want to change my Homeland or have a different story than the story of our ancestors, as God gave it to us. ” Argue your answer.

One of the problems with nuclear warheads is how to count them.
Photo from the book “Russia's Arms”, vol. 7, M., 1997

Russia's place in the modern world is determined primarily by the fact that after the liquidation of the USSR, it remains as the largest country in the world, in the depths of which a very large part of the planet’s main natural resources is concentrated, has great intellectual potential, is a nuclear power comparable to United States, is a member of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council.

Key - Economy

These are general provisions. But in terms of today, the answer to the question: what will Russia come out of the current global financial and economic crisis? Russia did not become an island of stability in a raging crisis sea. And it could not become, since the Russian economy is already an organic part of the world economy. However, the initial rainbow forecasts relied on the fact that Russia, as a result of the policy of the government financiers, acquired a solid safety cushion due to the huge funds received from high world prices for exported oil and gas. These funds were deliberately not directed at changing the commodity structure of the economy, at its diversification, but were invested in American securities. It was motivated by fears of an inflationary take-off in Russia and the need to create this now notorious airbag. As a result, Russia entered a crisis with gross domestic product, 40% of which was created through the export of raw materials.

Without using the funds received from exporting raw materials to develop their credit and banking system, many Russian entrepreneurs have become debtors of foreign banks. As a result, Russia entered the crisis, having $ 500 billion in corporate foreign debt. Many of the enterprises and debtor banks belong to the state. Taking into account such pre-crisis specificity, the need to solve three interrelated tasks now appears. The first of them is to minimize, mainly through state financial injections, crisis losses in the social sphere. The second task associated with the first is finding points of innovation growth, building their hierarchy in order to find the best way to boost the Russian economy. The third task, also connected with the first and second, is the creation of a new post-crisis economic model for Russia. Thus, yesterday predetermined the necessary actions today in order to open the post-crisis tomorrow for the country.

The solution of this triune problem has its own characteristics. One of them is not consecutive, but simultaneous advancement in three directions. Talking about first to plug crisis holes, and only after the end of the crisis, to work in favor of an innovative economy is simply harmful. Such a “schedule” will inevitably lead to the fact that after the crisis Russia will be trailing in technical and technological terms in the tail of dozens, and possibly hundreds of countries.

Characteristically, anti-crisis measures in Russia, starting with state financial injections into the credit and banking system, initially pursued a set of goals: socially - to keep household deposits, economically - to do everything so that the backbone of the economy would not break, and at the same time to send loans to banks in the manufacturing sector. At that stage, the unification of social and economic tasks did not work out, and the focus was shifted to financial assistance and support of the real sector of the economy while continuing the anti-crisis social policy. But even here there is an insufficient adjustment of positions. The fact is that there are two alternative variants of social policy in the conditions of a sharp drop in production: by all means force all enterprises to work in order to maintain employment of workers, or selective selection of state support objects. Despite the declared affiliation to the second variant, one gets the impression that the leadership continues to fluctuate between the first and second variants. Such fluctuations are explainable from a political, but not from an economic point of view. No doubt, it is necessary to provide state support to city-forming and competitive, efficient enterprises. But not to “all the sisters by the earrings”, which in no way precludes helping people who have to endure disaster in their inefficient, low-productivity enterprises.

Refusal to return to the pre-crisis commodity economic model does not mean that Russia is turning away from industries focused on the export of primary energy resources - especially oil and gas. But the general direction, which should also affect the raw materials sector, is the transfer of the entire economy of the country to an innovative rails. Talk about it does not count. However, it is unlikely that such a transfer contributes to the line on a general, without a differentiated approach, a reduction from 30 to 60% of budget expenditures on federal targeted programs. And not only. Undoubtedly, the crisis makes reduce budget spending, even drastically reduce. But in practice it turns out that it is not the Government Commission on High Technologies and Innovations, but the Ministry of Finance determines the extent of specific reductions in specific areas. I think that sooner or later - better sooner than later - along with the existing commissions and councils, a government agency for science and technology will be created, an executive authority.

In crisis conditions, many countries — Russia is no exception — act on the principle of trial and error. Ultimately, there is reason to believe that a course towards innovative development of the country and the creation of internal sources of growth will become increasingly more contrasting. There is simply no other way for a great state like Russia.

The current economic crisis has once again demonstrated that the global financial system cannot be managed from a single center. Along with the evidence of this fact, clumsily ironed about the talk that the dollar has already outlived itself as a reserve currency. However, a certain decentralization due to the strengthening of a number of national currencies and the processes leading to the creation of regional currencies will occur. This is another indicator of the emerging multipolar world pattern in which Russia can and should take a special place.

Military political role

In a multipolar world, this role is primarily determined by the relevance of Russia in solving global problems in the fight against the proliferation of nuclear weapons, terrorism, and for the elimination of regional international conflicts. I would like to emphasize the important characteristics of these challenges and threats to security for the entire world community.

The proliferation of nuclear weapons today focused on the problems of North Korea’s nuclear weapons and the prospects of Iran’s nuclear weapons. Russia has made and continues to make efforts to force the DPRK to abandon the military nuclear program and prevent the Iranian nuclear program from turning in a military direction. These tasks need to be solved by eliminating the use of military force, with a very careful attitude to economic sanctions. Recent weeks have demonstrated the dynamism of the internal political situation in Iran. With all the complexities of the domestic political situation in this country, it can still be concluded that the incident of an opposition explosion could slow down the transition through the line separating technical work in the nuclear field from directly developing into the sphere of manufacturing nuclear weapons. With an emphasis on power techniques, the situation in Iran will change for the worse.

As for the DPRK, the solution of many issues depends on the position of China. Given the importance of the moment, as is evident from media reports, the Russian leadership specifically consulted on this issue with PRC Chairman Hu Jintao during his recent stay in Moscow. It is known that Russia and China took a coordinated position on the problems of nuclear weapons of the DPRK.

To counter the proliferation of nuclear weapons, moving along the path of reducing strategic offensive weapons is of great importance, which in itself is naturally a vital task. Suffice to say that, in accordance with Article 6 of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, signed in 1968, the official nuclear powers should commit themselves to ending the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament. The absence of progress towards the fulfillment of this commitment was mentioned, in particular, by India, which had taken possession of nuclear weapons.

At the end of this year, the term of the START-1 Treaty expires. We can welcome the fact that at the expert level Russian-American negotiations are taking place with the aim of either extending the START-1 Treaty or signing a new treaty, taking into account the current realities.

What are these realities? First of all, there is a common interest in reducing nuclear warheads and their means of delivery. To this should be added a common - I stress, a common - interest in strict control over the process of reducing strategic offensive arms. However, the magnitude of this reduction is directly affected by a number of circumstances. Among them is a test not only for warheads, but also for missiles, including on stockpiled ones, an agreement not to deploy strategic offensive arms outside the territories of the United States and Russia. But when agreeing on the number of warheads and carriers for Russia, it seems to me that the state of affairs with anti-missile defense is decisive or, in any case, the most important.

The Republican Administration of the USA in 2002, as is known, withdrew from the indefinite ABM Treaty concluded by the USA and the USSR in 1972. The destruction of this pillar, which along with the START Treaty was based on the process of reducing nuclear armaments, was motivated by the fact that, say, the ABM Treaty is outdated, it is not adequate to the changing technical and technological conditions. Were there attempts to modify this contract in connection with the technical and technological development? Yes, there have been such attempts. As Foreign Minister, I had the opportunity to participate in the negotiations in Helsinki in 1997, and then sign an agreement with the United States on the distinction between strategic and non-strategic ABM. This agreement meant that the parties undertake obligations on the need for an ABM Treaty, provided consultations were provided for the modernization, adaptation of this agreement to the changing technical and technological environment.

However, the Bush administration canceled the treaty. Moreover, under Bush Jr., the United States decided to create American missile defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic, which, according to our military experts, is anti-Russian. When American colleagues sometimes reproach us that we are “over-reacting” to the deployment of the United States missile defense system in Eastern Europe, it would be recalled that Russia's negative attitude is intensifying, since there is reason to consider such deployment as a link to the United States Russia’s missile defense policy. It seems that when fixing the number of warheads and carriers in Russia and the United States, a lot will depend on the “missile defense factor”.

Now about the role of Russia in countering such a threat to international security as terrorism. It can be stated that we have a unified idea with the new American administration that, despite the Islamic tinge of most terrorist groups, terrorism is not generated by Islam as a religion. This is evidenced by the recent speech by President Obama in Cairo. Consequently, a general idea is formed of the inadequacy of the fight against terrorism in a war between civilizations or religions. But at the same time it is necessary to understand the reasons that give rise to terrorist methods on a global scale. Obviously, the situation in the Middle East, especially the longstanding unsettled Arab-Israeli conflict, could have been attributed to them.

Is there a possibility of its settlement? Historically, actions have been carried out leading to a settlement in three forms: direct (without intermediaries) negotiations of the parties, monopolization of the mediation mission by the United States and collective mediation - the current “quartet”, consisting of the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations. The first two forms can be considered invalid, they did not lead to progress. What about the “quartet”?

At present, the situation with the settlement of the Middle East conflict is complicated. The two main reasons for this are the position of the Israeli government headed by Netanyahu. This fact was once again confirmed by his statement, which had already followed the negotiations of the Israeli Prime Minister with US President Obama. Netanyahu set forth two terms of consent for the creation of a Palestinian state: its demilitarization and the recognition by all Arab countries of the Jewish character of Israel. The second condition is openly deciphered in Israel as a waiver of even the formal right to return of Palestinian refugees and the partition of Jerusalem. The Israeli Foreign Minister supplemented these unacceptable to the Arab side with the fact that the Arabs who now inhabit Israel must be deprived of political rights. Such a formulation of the question is allegedly dictated by the fact that Israel should be preserved as a mononational state.

At the same time, the collapse of the Palestinian side into two warring camps - Fatah and Hamas - is preventing the settlement. It seems that in such conditions it is counterproductive to convene an international conference on the Middle East settlement in Moscow in the near future. Preparation for it will take a long time.

At the same time, it is impossible to reduce the activity of international efforts in the elimination of the Middle East conflict. In this direction, special expediency of close American-Russian interaction may be manifested. We should not ignore the unique position of Russia, which at the same time has excellent relations with Israel, Syria, Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah. And from the unique position of the United States in terms of its impact on Israel. Combining these capabilities with well-thought-out tactics and a sound division of functions can have a very positive effect in approaching a general settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The visit of Obama to Moscow will take place soon. Negotiations by the American president with Russian leaders are capable of making a serious contribution to the cause of stabilizing the world situation and strengthening international security.

The date of the emergence of today's Russia can be considered the date of the collapse of the USSR. During this period, the CIS was created (as an attempt to reduce the damage from the rupture of traditional economic ties) and a fundamentally new foreign policy situation has developed for Russia.

The first decade of the existence of modern Russia is associated to a greater extent with negative consequences - the most important economic ties with the countries of the former USSR were severed. The defense capability suffered greatly, and the borders with the former republics were virtually absent. Collapsed single MIC. The former influence on the countries of Central and Eastern Europe was lost. Former partners in the CMEA and the Warsaw Pact linked their plans for the future with the European Union and NATO.

The first years of the CIS countries deliberately distanced themselves from Russia, but a large number of social and economic problems arising during the years of independence forced the countries to partially resume the integration processes already within the CIS. In 1992, a large number of documents regulating relations within the Commonwealth were adopted, and the Collective Security Treaty was signed. However, the CIS to this day has not gained the status of a deeply integrated union of states and is today rather a relic of the early 90s.

Despite the utopian views of the rulers of that era, the former Soviet republics did not begin to live in peace and harmony with Russia, nor did they deepen economic ties. The policy of the West, which seemed to us an ally to present a new ideology, is still aimed at breaking the traditional ties - not only economic and political, but also cultural ones. The West, which seemed to us to be a generous and disinterested donor, an ideal role model in matters of socio-economic development, has never stopped introducing aggressive rhetoric into the relations between now former rivals. Thus, in spite of the sluggish resistance of our country, NATO has expanded as the result of the entry of Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic.

In addition, NATO has gotten close to our borders at the expense of the countries that have entered and are planning to join NATO, such as the Baltic States, Ukraine and Georgia. To date, only one superpower has survived - the United States, and many are beginning to think that the era of unlimited American domination is coming. The United States, of course, has reason to claim the role of a powerful center of power for the long term. They have amassed an impressive economic, military, scientific, technical, and informational and cultural potential, which is projected onto all the main spheres of life in the modern world. At the same time, America’s growing desire to lead others.

The American official doctrine proclaims the presence in the world of a zone of US influence (the so-called "core" zone) into which it is supposed to include, ultimately, an overwhelming number of states. The United States is favored in this policy by the fact that alternative social models (socialism, non-capitalist path of development) are depreciated at this stage, have lost their attractiveness, and many countries voluntarily copy the United States and take their leadership. The risk of finally becoming a world with one pole of influence is great.

And here it is worth going back to Russia, which, having passed the way of terrible crises, the collapse of the ruble and the economic collapse, nevertheless began to partially restore its position. After 2000, against the backdrop of rising energy prices, the Russian economy has felt a boom. Unnoticed by the West, which for the third decade has already been celebrating the victory of the USSR, Russia began to strengthen the economy. Up until 2008, the growth rate of the economy only increased. Despite the fact that the rise was associated with an increase in energy exports (oil, gas), revenues allowed the state to develop other economic sectors, which had a positive effect on the market as a whole.

The accumulated buffer stabilization fund helped Russia survive the 2008 economic crisis, which cost us less losses than some EU countries. The modern confrontation between the West and Russia is no longer exclusively militarized, to a greater degree the role is played by micro-and macro-economic ties, the power of economies, cultural and political influence. The impact on developing countries is not determined by the presence of military bases there, but by the presence of controlling stakes in mining companies as well as the key industries of these countries. Influence is estimated by the size of strategic contracts, which give a stronger, albeit less noticeable influence.

Modern Russia is essentially the only alternative to the West, which has come to a dead end in development. Despite the short-term realities, it is possible to single out several fundamental points that do not allow to deprive Russia of the “power” rank. Traditionally resource-rich Russia is a profitable partner for Europe, which, with its intellectual and technical excellence, is drowning in social problems. Despite the loss of the sphere of influence at the end of the twentieth century, the second decade of the 21st century can be described as positive - traditionally the return of the Russian territories, diplomatic victories in Syria, conflict resolution in the former USSR, victory in the home Olympiad and much more.

Many victories and achievements that relate to different areas of our society are essentially a victory for the country's economy, because you have to pay for everything. Russia of the model of recent years has opened its doors to the whole world, we are ready for any projects, we are trying to create a favorable climate for investment. Even in times of international tension, today's Russia is no longer about the imperial ambitions, or about the West. Modern Russia is a pragmatic country acting in its own interests. And the interest of modern Russia is a single economic space from Europe to Asia.

The political situation that arose against the background of the revolution in Ukraine is likely to be decisive for the whole world. In the next few years, the European Union will have to decide - who is Russia? The first option is a rich country with which it is profitable to trade, in which traditional family values ​​and potential for development in all spheres are still preserved. The second option is a geopolitical rival who is turning his gaze towards China and other Asian countries. In any case, we have something to answer - in the military-industrial complex, Russia has a stable second place after the United States and our army is no longer associated with the horrors of hazing, but has quite modern weapons. The current military doctrine of Russia is in no way connected with a cumbersome and ineffective army, sufficiently small forces — hackers providing adequate information cover, high-precision weapons, and the media forming public opinion. What Russia was able to do in the Crimea was a failure of the US foreign intelligence service, which received a loud slap in the face.

Modern Russia has learned to think in a new way - having joined the common world market, we will not be exposed to the isolation that was possible under the USSR, because cutting off the Russian market, Europe is depriving itself of the same amount of income. Influence in the 21st century, this is management of interdependence and the task of modern Russia is to become the most profitable and promising trading partner on the continent. And if the United States cannot prevent this, then today we live in the most promising country.

Tutoring

Need help learning any topics?

  Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Send an application  with an indication of the topic right now to find out about the possibility of receiving advice.

The 100th anniversary of Great October has died down. Conclusions about this event are different. But both her lovers and her haters agreed on one thing: the Russian revolution made an enormous contribution to world development. Frightening the European ruling class with a mass riot, she made him think about how to improve the life of the population, ensure its rights, and improve the social system. How to avoid what happened in the Russian Empire. In a word, they realized that it was better to learn from the mistakes of others.

This is the main historical merit of Russia and the USSR after it. At the cost of our own, if you will, personal tragedy, our country has shown how not to live. The program of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union stated: "With all the unevenness, complexity, and contradictory nature, the movement of humanity towards socialism and communism is irresistible." Lied to the CPSU, just as the official TV is lying now.

In parallel with the 100th anniversary of our revolution, the world noted, though not with such noise and din, a half-thousand-year anniversary of their revolution, I mean the Christian reformation. In 1517 an event occurred in its modesty that was incomparable with any assault on the Winter and II Congresses of the Soviets. Martin Luther, a theologian from the University of Wittenberg, a German translator of the Bible, publicly and rudely condemned the papal bull, and later burnt it altogether. As a result, Protestantism emerged, which revolutionized the whole world, gave it such an impetus that Protestant societies and states are still ahead of the rest of the world in their development. Protestantism remained forever.

Russia, having made a paradoxical and temporary contribution to world history, having puffed up the Soviet Union, is fading away. Remember the famous Soviet song: "But we make rockets, we overlap the Yenisei, and in the field of ballet we are ahead of the rest." You will not surprise anyone with the rockets and the overlapping of the rivers, and ballet is increasingly associated with Anastasia Volochkova.

We descended from the prize podium, frozen on economic development at the semi-advantageous spot at the end of the top ten not far from Turkey and Australia. There is no need to talk about technological backwardness at all.

The official thirst for a multi-polar world means the recognition that Russia is no longer there and is unlikely to ever become a superpower. A passion for multipolarity is evidence of a hidden inferiority complex. 30 and more years ago, it was tactless to talk about a multipolar world. There were two superpowers, and all the rest - road dust. Was there then a need for a multipolar world, in which Russia, forgive, the USSR is no more than one of the poles?

A multipolar world has always existed. The history of Europe in the 18th – 20th centuries until the end of the Second World War was a history of multipolarity, which took many different forms. One of the poles was Russia, and the Russian pole was becoming more influential. The country slowly, but stubbornly ascended to the upper floors. Her voice in the concert of European powers sounded more confident. Europe could not imagine itself without Russia. Russia did not think of itself outside Europe, it became part of it. Russian culture was European. Russian literature dreamed of Europe, snorting at the national originality, considering it backward.

In the 2000s, Russia pushes Europe away from itself, and Europe turns its back on us. In retaliation, we call it the West. As in Soviet times, “Zapad” became a swear word. You can assess the sanctions imposed on Russia in different ways, but among other things, it is also its alienation, which can lead to disengagement from it. Who will we stay with? With the Chinese Shanghai Cooperation Organization? With loose BRICS or with the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU)? Paraphrasing the words of Alexander III, c army and navy? Bored, brothers. (This November, Alexander III erected a monument. And rightly so. Just do not hesitate to learn that this king took first care of the economy and did much more for it than it is done, for example, now.)

Russia's place in the world shrinks. We are lagging behind politically and economically. It is scary to think about what can happen with demographics. There is an opinion, and it is quite reasonable, that “by the end of the XXI century, the indigenous population of Russia will move to the Red Book of History” (see “NG” from 11/14/17).

The post-Soviet space has almost disappeared, becoming a historical memory. The Russian leadership on it became conditional, it is shrinking geographically. Georgia and Ukraine are lamely lost. I am sure that they could be kept under the Russian roof, be Kremlin politicians more pragmatic and smarter. In political tactics — there is no need to talk about strategy at all — infantile ambitions have prevailed.

Remember, Khlestakov has 30 thousand couriers? And we have 30 thousand strategists or, as they are now called, security experts. Where is she, this security? What does it eat?

The Eurasian Economic Union is breaking. It is becoming more and more difficult for its members to negotiate among themselves; claims are being made to Russia, which lacks money for its main integration project. And then there are the sanctions from which the members of the EEU indirectly suffer. They are still not asked the question: “With whom are you guys - with her (Moscow) or with us?” But they seem to be hinting. The European Union has already developed a new strategy “EU - Central Asia”, which in the capitals of the region is treated with hope, even with enthusiasm.

None of the post-Soviet recognized neither the independence of Abkhazia with South Ossetia, nor even the Russian Crimea. Nursultan Nazarbayev believes that the Crimean problem should be solved "on the basis of preserving sovereignty and in accordance with the norms of international law." Doesn't want “destruction of the Ukrainian state” Alexander Lukashenko. And this is not what the Poles or the Germans say. They say, so to speak, their own.

They do not recognize the Russian Crimea, if, of course, the world community does not agree to this. And it is not going to agree. Time is working against Russia.

Russia does not lead, does not even catch up. She is lagging behind. She returned to the state of raw power, entirely dependent on energy - gas and oil. Resources are given by God. By the way, this is exactly what is believed in the Persian Gulf. But even the Almighty carefully observes how the happiness sent to them is spent. Muslims, he can be pleased. They learned to use their hydrocarbons for the benefit of modernization. And we squander them. How wasted in the USSR. The Lord may be angry.

Of course, there are also Russian, more precisely, Soviet nuclear weapons. But for a sense of global usefulness this is not enough. God forbid, they reform the UN, expand the number of permanent members of the Security Council and remove the right of veto. Russia will then generally be one of the ordinary states.

Russia is not afraid, despite the fact that all domestic television and other propaganda screams as they respect and, most importantly, fear Putin. But, to be honest, they are rather angry at her, she is annoying. Recently, the New York Times, in connection with the situation in Syria, wrote: "Russia is infuriating." Sounds nice. Even respectfully. I read here from a security specialist that “for the first time in the last 300 years, the West may be completely ousted (by Russia? - AM) from the Middle East.” That's interesting, did he come up with it himself or did someone tell him?

However, some clever cheburashki in the West think a little differently. Say, these Russians are stuck in the Middle East, roar, and then what? They failed in Afghanistan, now they have got involved in the civil war in Syria, and they don’t know what it will end. Afghanistan was the decline of the USSR. And Syria? There is no real strategy. So, maybe, let them flounder there? After all, with any outcome of the Syrian conflict, the situation in Russia turns out to be unenviable.

For the Chinese, Russia has long been a younger sister, which they almost do not hide, although they do not speak out loud about it. The older generation remembers the USSR with sincere respect and at the same time sympathizes that we did not have our own Deng Xiaoping. Looks like it will never happen to us. The train left.

It seems that somewhere in Australia, in a general photograph of the first persons, Putin was almost in the corner. They say he was very offended and immediately left, citing employment. Economic Russia is also paying less attention. Ever less want to deal.

Behind the sardonic grin of politicians, political scientists close to them, and especially television anchors - wisdom, knowledge of all kinds of secrets. They know all the answers. They are applauded by the clak gathered at the show, designed to depict society. “A workable ideology in the current situation,” writes St. Petersburg economist Dmitry Travin, “should completely shut off the minds of the average man and shift the burden on emotions.” And this is done quite skillfully.

Does the population believe in official lies? First they believed in Soviet propaganda, then they stopped it. The Soviet people honestly did not like the West, but equally sincerely dreamed of getting American jeans. And in general, he knew that over the hill live better. It is known that even in anonymous sociological surveys, people often say not what they actually think, but what is expected of them. Such is human nature. Firstly, I want to like it, and secondly, it is better to just say just in case.

If you talk to a person without any intent, he will first mention his salary (pension), prices, corruption, that everyone steals. He will remember the greatness of the state, the Crimea, Syria, NATO’s aggressiveness only at the end of the conversation. If he is reminded of this.

It’s hard to say how such a person will vote in elections, be it Duma or municipal, even presidential, if he doesn’t put pressure on his brain every day. Experience shows that at the municipal it feels more offended, and most importantly - relaxed, he does not reflect on the greatness of Russia. And what is more important for a single individual - to live in a great power, or just to live well in a non-dominant kingdom-state?

The power convinces the society that you have to pay for a great power. Not for a comfortable life, but for greatness. The idea of ​​Russia's greatness is the basis of official ideology and propaganda. The elite itself lives more than comfortably, while others pay for greatness. Russian writer Alexey Ivanov, feeling in Russia, writes in his book “Forks”: “A mismatch between the goals of the elite and the nation is the eternal drama of Russia. What did the nobility lack in the 18th century? Honor There was an abundance of estate arrogance, but honor was not enough. ” Agree, it all resembles the current time. “Does the new Middle Ages threaten Russia?”, Economist Ulyana Nikolaeva wonders (see NG on 10.25.16). Let us sigh and tell the truth: even as it threatens. In some respects, the estate society and the corresponding political system are already functioning. In the 21st century, estates were revived in the Russian Federation, and social elevators collapsed. It does not bother the domestic quasi-feudal elite, it even makes her happy. So calmer, so for her less threats.

But here is a paradox. Modern feudal lords scream at every corner about the greatness of Russia, but in fact they, like the average person’s average person, are most concerned about their own well-being. And it is largely based on foreign deposits and foreign real estate. This foreign wealth with the current foreign policy ambitions may be under threat. Of course, the main authorities promised that if the accounts were blocked and foreign property was threatened, the state would try to compensate the loyal servants of the fatherland for their loss, but the budget would not be enough for all. There will be victims. Interest in investments in the United States in 2017 compared to last year has already dropped by 40%. So is it worth the risk to go on?

Is it not better for Russia to become more moderate, to occupy a more modest place in geopolitics, to put it simply, not to go for it? Indeed, in this case, no one will threaten the money acquired by Russian feudal lords with unknown ways. Is that Navalny. Is not it better to go into the shadows?

The article by Levada Center Director Lev Gudkov, "We are returning in late Soviet times," states: "Putin’s high rating is not love, not sympathy, not even special respect for the president. This is an expression of the weakness or inefficiency of all institutions that determine the conditions of people's daily lives. ” It turns out that we live simultaneously in two epochs - under feudalism or under Brezhnev. However, in actual fact it is almost the same, therefore, claims for seats in the first row in the world theater are unfounded.

Personally, to me - the former Oktyabrenka, pioneer, Komsomol member and member of the CPSU - is insulting. But what can you do! Who is guilty? It is their own fault that they let the country drop, bring it to such a state.

Alexey Malashenko, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Head of Research at the Dialogue of Civilizations Institute