Holodnaya voyna (1946-1989 ... p.t)

In short, the Cold War is an ideological, military and economic confrontation between the two strongest powers of the 20th century, the USSR and the United States, which lasted 45 years - from 1946 to 1991. The word "war" is conditional here, the conflict continued without the use of military forces, but this made it no less tough. If we talk briefly about the Cold War, ideology was the main weapon in it.

The main countries of this confrontation are the Soviet Union and the United States. Since its inception, the USSR has caused concern in Western countries. The communist system was the extreme opposite of the capitalist one, and the spread of socialism to other countries caused an extremely negative reaction from the West and the United States.

Only the threat of the capture of Europe by Nazi Germany forced the former fierce opponents to become temporary allies in World War II. France, Great Britain, the USSR and the United States formed an anti-Hitler coalition and fought together with German troops. But conflicts were forgotten only during the war.

After the end of the bloodiest war of the 20th century, a new division of the world into spheres of influence began between the major victorious countries. The USSR extended its influence to Eastern Europe. Gain Soviet Union caused serious concern in England and the United States. Already in 1945, the governments of these countries were developing plans to attack their main ideological enemy. British Prime Minister William Churchill, who hates the communist regime, made an open statement in which he stressed that military superiority in the world should be on the side of the Western countries, not the USSR. Statements of this kind have increased tensions between the Western countries and the Soviet Union.

In short, the Cold War began in 1946, just after the end of World War II. It began with Churchill's speech in the American city of Fulton. She showed the true attitude of the Western allies towards the USSR.
In 1949, the West created a military NATO bloc with the aim of protecting against possible aggression from the USSR. The Soviet Union with the allied countries also formed in 1955, in opposition to the Western countries, its own military alliance - the "Warsaw Pact Organization".

The main participants in the conflict, the USSR and the USA, did not enter military operations, but their policy led to the emergence of many local conflicts in many regions of the world.
The Cold War was accompanied by increased militarization, an arms race and ideological warfare. How fragile the world is under such conditions was shown by the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. The real war was averted with difficulty. After him, the USSR came to understand the need for disarmament. Mikhail Gorbachev, since 1985, has pursued a policy of establishing more trusting relations with Western countries.

In 1988-89, the process of "perestroika" began in the USSR, the Berlin Wall fell, and soon the socialist camp collapsed. And the USSR did not even begin to claim any influence in the third world countries. By 1990, the Cold War was over. It was she who contributed to the strengthening of the totalitarian regime in the USSR. The arms race also led to scientific discoveries: nuclear physics began to develop more intensively, and space research acquired a broader scope.

The aftermath of the cold war

The 20th century has ended, more than ten years have passed in the new millennium. There is no longer the Soviet Union, and the countries of the West have also changed ... But as soon as the once weak Russia rises from its knees, gains strength and confidence in the world arena, the United States and its allies again dream of the "specter of communism". And it remains to be hoped that the politicians of the leading countries will not return to the policy of the Cold War, since everyone will ultimately suffer from it ...

58. The collapse of the USSR and the formation of a new Russian statehood in the 90s. Restructuring.

Soviet Union in 1985-1991 Restructuring. The collapse of the USSR.

The concept of "restructuring" can be defined. as an attempt to preserve the admin.-command socialism, giving it the el-you of democracy and market relations, without affecting the fundamental foundations of polit. building. Perestroika had serious prerequisites. Stagnation in the economy, the growth of scientific and technical. lagging behind the West, failures in the social. sphere caused millions of people and part of leaders to realize the need for change. Dr. its prerequisite was watered. crisis, expressed in the decomposition of the leadership, in its inability to provide. econom. progress.

The subjective reason for the restructuring is Jav. arrival on tue. floor. 70s-early 80s. to the country's leadership rel. young politicians (M. S. Gorbachev, E. K. Ligacheva, E. A. Shevardnadze, N. I. Ryzhkov) who sought not only to strengthen their power, but also advocated the renewal of the state and society.

You can offer sl.periodization of restructuring: 1st stage - from April 1985 to the end of 1986; the second stage - from January 1987 to April 1988; the third stage - from April 1988 to March 1990; fourth stage - from March 1990 to August 1991

The beginning of perestroika was laid by the April (1985) Plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, proclaimed. course to accelerate the social economy. development of the country, profound changes in the life of the community through the improvement of socialism. Acceleration of presumed real at the expense of scientific and technical. progress, rearmament of machines and activation of “human. factor ”, by increasing labor and econ. discipline. The most realistic restructuring is manifest. at the first stage in ext. politics, where the idea of ​​a new polit. thinking. It meant a rethinking of the modern. peace and the conduct of the regiment from the standpoint of the common man. values.

A slow departure from the ideas of the "world revolution" began. The first years of perestroika show. Gorbachev (and his position in the party leadership has strengthened) that radik. changes cannot be achieved without profound transformations of the economy and polit. sis-we. Exs. 2 alternatives to the development of the USSR: the first could be based on the experience of China, where, in the absence of polit. freedoms widely deployed econ. reform, the second option assumed simultaneously. democratization and reforms. The second option was chosen. It was with these measures that the second stage of perestroika began. Understanding the importance of econ. questions, Gorbachev called the 1987 Plenum, at the cat. offer. program of reforms in the economy. The transition from administrative to economics was proclaimed. methods of leadership of the national economy. The two cornerstones of the reform were the State Laws adopted in 1987. the enterprise and about cooperation.

An important role in the implementation. reforms, involvement in polit. the life of the working people played half of the glasnost. It began by uncovering the truth about the crimes Stalinist period, without exposing the cat. it was impossible to break the totalitarian regime.

During a party conference in June-July 1988 b. the question of polit. reform, for example. on the creation of a legal state-va, the development of parliamentarism. B. changes were made to the Constitution of the USSR, providing for the introduction of a new element of state. structure - Congress of People's Deputies of the USSR. During this period of perestroika, a multi-party system is being formed. Gorbachev begins to carry out a half-ku of maneuvering with conservatives and reformists. But this style played into the hands of opponents of change. The lack of firmness and decisiveness hit the economy especially hard. 1988-1990 not attempted will decide. measures for its structural transformation - saved. former farms. mechanism. The changes affected only the cooperative sector. Open inflationary processes began, production fell, decreased. standard of living. In the spring of 1990, the last began. the stage of restructuring is a crisis. Fast. Gorbachev's hesitations led the conservatives to accuse him of being "bourgeois," "betraying the affairs of socialism."

BN Yeltsin, who was elected Chairman of the Supreme Soviet in the spring of 1990 at the end of July, Gorbachev to develop a joint program of economics. reforms. Initially, two programs were developed: Ryzhkova-Abalkina (“Prussian” way of market transformation of society) and Shatalin-Yavlinsky (radical transition to the market). Although the second program was chosen, the plan was not actually completed. Instead of Ryzhkov, the chairman of the govt-va was V. S. Pavlov, a cat. real increase in prices and exchange of 50- and 100-ruble banknotes. The ruble has depreciated significantly.

At the turn of 1990-1991. Gorbachev approached the conservatives. Complicated half in the Union republics. April 23, 1991 - a meeting of the leaders of 11 republics took place in Novo Ogarevo. b. an agreement was reached on the principles of a new union treaty. Yeltsin began to lose the support of the majority, the cat. was elected to the post of Chairman of the Supreme Council. He is prov. early elections of the President of Russia and wins.

At the same time, on August 21, 1991, Dr. sign a union treaty, cat. envisaged creation of a federal state-va. However, on August 18, a group of hands-lei proposed. Gorbachev to introduce an emergency. half and end the reforms. After the refusal, he was isolated from the ruling country.

On August 19, Vice-President G. I. Yanaev took office as President. The State Emergency Committee was created. In Moscow there were centuries. troops. The fight against the Emergency Committee was led by Yeltsin and the leadership of Russia. The coup was declared unconstitutional. Prod. putsch at the White House. Many thousands of Muscovites came to White House... Act. the role in the org-and resistance to the putsch was played by new entrepreneurs - the hands of stock exchanges, commercial structures. They provided fin. and tech. help hands-lyam of Russia, and their employees were act. participants of the living ring at the White Lady. As a result, the putschists did not dare to use force, and by August 21 the demonstration was suppressed. The leaders of the Emergency Committee were taken into custody. These events essentially drew a line under the existence of the USSR. The victory of Yeltsin and the Democrats scared the local communist nomenclature and threw itself into the arms of the nationalists. A wave of proclamations of independence, referendums and presidential elections swept through all the republics.

In December, at a meeting in Belovezhskaya Pushcha, Yeltsin, Kravchuk and Shushkevich, and then at a meeting in Alma-Ata of the leaders of the former Soviet republics, the union treaty of 1922 was terminated, the USSR ceased to exist, and Gorbachev resigned. Simultaneously the CIS arose on the territory of the former union. The collapse of the admin.-command socialism and the liquidation of the USSR were provoked. a complex of social and economic. reasons. First of all, the markets that developed on a “shadow” criminal basis demanded legalization. relationship. Totalitarian polit. sis-ma not b. capable of providing conv. for the progress of the economy. The lack of real rights and powers of the union republics, the gap in the levels of their economies. development, fear of losing nat. identity, memories of repressions created the prerequisites for the rise of national movements.

Formation of a new Russian statehood.

With the collapse of the USSR, the history of a new modern one began. Russia. Today it is still difficult with history. t. sp. to assess the collapse of the USSR and the events that followed, since very little time has passed, there is no necessary detachment from the era, until the end we still cannot imagine all the consequences of this event. But even today, those denials are clearly outlined. trends, cat. caused by the events of 1991, many historians compare the importance of 1991 with the events of October 1917 in Russia.

The most serious turnout. decline in the Russian economy. At the end of 1991, a new governing body was formed, cat. headed by E. T. Gaidar, a scientist-economist, supporter of liberal-market relations. Reforms early. With " shock therapy”. They included a landslide liberalization of prices, and an unprecedented rise in prices took place. In rez-those appeared. goods, but the savings of millions of citizens were lost. Savings, often collected over the course of a lifetime, were turned to dust at once, and so that the economy could not derive the slightest benefit from them. The salary of workers in the public sector has decreased many times. Simultaneously early reform on denationalization of state. own. She is incl. voucher plan, developed. A. B. Chubais, cat. provided for the distribution of vouchers, i.e. privatization checks to the entire population of the country. Vouchers, scraps of paper handed out to the population instead of money, turned out to be useless. Another form of denationalization was corporatization of property. Isp. also the sale of property by auction. All this made it possible to provide. mass denationalization of property, but a narrow layer of Russian citizens became its owners, most of them are former employees of party, Komsomol, trade union organizations.

Initiated reforms rev. and the bank. sis-mu. An important role in fin. sphere began to play free. circulation of foreign currency. Decreased state. and the cooperative form of trade, sharply led away. private trade sector. Russian market littered with foreign. goods. But the new ones, the so-called market ones, had little to do with the civilized market, which caused great harm to both the state and citizens. During this period, activist. struggle for the origin. capital accumulation. And Russia has become like America of the 30s, a cat. was going through a gangster war at that time. The transition to private property, market relations caused private entrepreneurship. But it manifested. primarily in Fin. sphere, in the development of the market, decomp. services, at the same time practical. did not touch the mother. production-va. Most of the enterprises could not stand this course of reforms. Fact. the industry was destroyed, tk. industrial production fell by more than half. The fall of production led to massive non-payments, abbr. deductions to the state budget, pension fund, took away. salary arrears.

This govt. Worked for about a year. The country managed to turn towards the market, but at what cost. Voltage the struggle in the half was intertwined with the struggle for the choice of economists. course of transformation. For the successful development of reforms, it is necessary. b. develop a scientific basis. development concept, but there was no time for this. The management is forced to b. compose it in a hurry, while making mistakes. The reform began to be carried out without the support of the masses, which complicated its implementation. We need b. well-trained reformist cadres. Hence the frequent changes in the country's leadership. Changes in the composition of the Government of the Russian Federation sometimes took on a protracted nature and led to negation. econom. consequences. This happened during the next change of government on March 23, 1998, when for the first time it was dismissed in full force, headed by its chairman V.S.Chernomyrdin. In April 1998, the new chairman of the gov-va b. the young reformer S.V. Kirienko was elected. This government did not work for long. August 25, 1998 it was dismissed by presidential decree. This was caused by the government's decision to freeze T-bills (simultaneous default) and devaluation. This led to disastrous consequences. Within a month, the economy was thrown back to the level of the beginning of the 90s. for some time the whole Fin. system of Russia. Econ. the crisis has worsened and polit. crisis, cat. b. associated with the creation of a new government-va RF. Prime Minister b. E. M. Primakov was elected, a man, a cat. in September 1998 we supported practical. all factions in the State. Duma. The formation of a new cabinet began. But the most serious consequences of the 1998 autumn crisis, which consist in the alienation of power from the people, in the loss of the people's confidence by the country's leadership, will not be overcome soon.

The process of transformation of econ. system we have provided much more painful, long and difficult than presented. previously. Market mechanisms tries. at a primitive level, Fin. the sector is still weak by international standards, industry and agriculture are experiencing a long-term decline. This is due to unfavorable conditions. st-in, both external and internal. character. First of all, for the successful implementation of reforms, Russia does not have enough resources. Unprecedented econom. the crisis has led to a multiple decline. income of the federal government. State the budget in 1997 amounted to about 80 billion dollars. As a result, not b. no. even a reduced plan for state expenditures. The Russian government lives in debt: in 1995-1997. the size of the state. domestic debt rose from 14.7% to 25.4% of GDP. Noticeably abbr. taxable base, because continued decline in industrial production-va.

The budget deficit is growing. And this is the meaning. search for new funds abroad. Dependence of Russia on the outside is growing. creditors. Russia inherited. from the USSR about 70 billion dollars of external debt, since then it has doubled. Only in 1995-1996. ext. the debt was taken away. by 12 billion dollars. The gov't pays with one hand on new bills, while others - it is gaining more and more loans.

After the collapse of the socialist system in Russia, practical. have to re-integrate into the world. the economy. And this happens. in cond., when the competitiveness of the Russian economy is extremely low. Ext. Russia's trade is reminiscent of underdeveloped countries: exports are dominated by oil and gas, and other minerals. Russia still has opportunities - in aviation, special metallurgy, mechanical engineering, energy, biotechnology and other spheres.

Scientific and technical the country's development is rapidly declining.

the decline in inflation and the currency “corridor” did not lead to the spread of the ruble's zone of action, but to its reduction.

A tough tax regiment in both small and medium-sized. entrepreneurs, and in rel-and citizens, led to the opposite result: taxes were collected. even worse.

Low inflation d. Was abbr. prices for loans and borrowings, but nothing of the kind.

The govt tried to revive the prom. production by developing strategic. directions, holding a competition of projects, in the further attraction of funds from the state and foreign. investors. But there was no need. funds, and the program of the industry. the half was never approved. By the end of the 20th century, Russia turned out. in a difficult half-and. But all is not yet lost. Russia still has a chance to get out of the protracted crisis.

There are three ways of development:

the loss of the intellectual and cultural potential of the country's development, its transformation into a raw material base and a source of cheap labor.

Realization of the ideals of the consumer society and the formation of a high level of consumption.

The search for movement towards an information society, the development of a new reform strategy, the change of the ideals of the consumer society to a system of values ​​that affirms the prestige of the spiritual and intellectual spheres, the development of culture, science, technological revolution, etc.

The country continues to reform the polit. systems. Further changes in polit. lives go in the direction of approved. statehood.

On December 12, 1993, the Constitution was adopted by popular vote. She consolidated the changes that have taken place in the country. It states that the people are the bearer of sovereignty and the only source of power. He exercises his power directly and through state and local government bodies. The new law limited the powers of parliament, but strengthened the power of the president. The President exercises the power of government and lawmaking through decrees. The 1996 presidential elections confirmed Yeltsin for another 4 years.

Elections in the country have become a regular occurrence.

58. After the death of Chernenko in 1985, Mikhail Gorbachev came to power. By that time, the USSR was already on the brink of a deep crisis, both in the economy and in the social sphere. The efficiency of social production was steadily declining, and the arms race was a heavy burden on the country's economy. In fact, all spheres of society were in need of renewal. The difficult situation of the USSR was the reason for perestroika, as well as changes in the country's foreign policy. Modern historians distinguish the following stages of perestroika:

1985 - 1986

1987 - 1988

1989 - 1991

During the beginning of perestroika from 1985 to 1986. there were no significant changes in the organization of the country's governance. In the regions, power, at least formally, belonged to the Soviets, and at the highest level - to the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. But, during this period, statements about glasnost and the fight against bureaucracy were already heard. The process of rethinking gradually began international relations... Tension in relations between the USSR and the United States has significantly decreased.

Large-scale changes began somewhat later - from the end of 1987. This period is characterized by an unprecedented freedom of creativity, the development of art. Author's publicistic programs are released on television, magazines publish materials promoting the ideas of reforms. At the same time, the political struggle is clearly intensifying. Serious transformations begin in the sphere of state power. So, in December 1988, at the 11th extraordinary session of the Supreme Soviet, the law "On amendments and additions to the Constitution" was adopted. The law made changes to the electoral system, introducing the principle of alternativeness.

However, the third period of perestroika in the USSR turned out to be the most turbulent. In 1989, Soviet troops were completely withdrawn from Afghanistan. In fact, the USSR ceases to support socialist regimes on the territory of other states. The camp of the socialist countries is crumbling. The most important, significant event of that period was the fall of the Berlin Wall and the unification of Germany.

The party is gradually losing real power and its unity. A fierce struggle between the factions begins. Not only the current situation in the USSR is criticized, but also the very foundations of the ideology of Marxism, as well as the October Revolution of 1917. Many opposition parties and movements are being formed.

Against the backdrop of a tough political struggle during this period of Gorbachev's perestroika, a split begins in the sphere of the intelligentsia, among art workers. While some of them were critical of the processes taking place in the country, the other part provides all-round support to Gorbachev. Against the background of political and social freedom unprecedented at that time, the volume of funding, both art and science, education, and many industries, is significantly decreasing. Talented scientists in such conditions go to work abroad, or turn into businessmen. Many research institutes and design bureaus cease to exist. The development of knowledge-intensive industries slows down, and later stops altogether. Perhaps the most striking example of this can be the Energia - Buran project, within the framework of which the unique space shuttle Buran was created, which made a single flight.

The material situation of the majority of citizens is gradually deteriorating. Also, there is an exacerbation of interethnic relations. Many cultural and political figures are beginning to say that perestroika has outlived its usefulness.

The consequences of perestroika are extremely ambiguous and multifaceted. Undoubtedly, the receipt by society of social and political freedoms, publicity and the reform of the planned distribution economy are positive aspects. However, the processes that took place during the perestroika period in the USSR in 1985 - 1991 led to the collapse of the USSR and the aggravation of interethnic conflicts that had been smoldering for a long time. The weakening of power, both in the center and in the localities, a sharp decline in the standard of living of the population, the undermining of the scientific base, and so on. Undoubtedly, the results of perestroika and its meaning will be rethought by future generations more than once.

59. Russian Federation in 1991-2000

Consequences of restructuring Economic consequencesthe collapse of the USSR and the difficulties of economic transformation was a reduction in the economic potential of Russia by one third. The country lost half of its seaports and merchant fleet, direct access to world routes in the West and in the South.

The immediate result was a drop in production, the cessation of investment activities, the collapse of cooperative ties within the USSR and CMEA. There was a decrease in the volume of trade and a deterioration in its structure. All this reflected on the socio-economic situation in the country, caused the process of population polarization.

At the same time, Russia declared itself the legal successor of the Union and inherited all Union property located on its territory, including the remnants of the gold reserve.

Political changesthe period of Gorbachev's reforms led to the elimination of the one-party communist system and the weakening of political stability in society. Political freedoms, political pluralism were consolidated in the country, and a multi-party system was formed.

The beginning of Russian modernization

Economic development in 1991-1993After 1991, a new stage of economic modernization began in Russia.

The radicals who came to power led by B.N. Yeltsin nominatedeconomic reform programfor 1992-1993, which included:

- free pricing (which should have eliminated the commodity deficit);

- trade liberalization and then

mass privatization of housing and state-owned enterprises.

The total destruction of the state monopoly on economic activity was the main task of the liberal-privatization course of reforms.Structural restructuring of the Russian economysuggested overcoming overmilitarization and excessive production of means of production (which in 1992 amounted to 82.6%).

The social direction of the reforms consisted in the creation of new social groups, primarily a relatively broad stratum of property owners.

The main strategist of economic reforms, a supporter of the method of shock therapy, was the Deputy Prime Minister of the Russian governmentE.T. Gaidar.

Reform progress.On January 1, 1992, prices for most of the products were released. The next step was the privatization of state property. In 1992, it was planned to privatize 20% of state-owned enterprises in trade and services. On October 1, 1992, the issuance of privatization checks (vouchers) to Russian citizens began. Since 1993, the investment of these securities in the shares of enterprises has been permitted.

At the same time, in January 1992, the centralized system of resource allocation was abolished, measures were taken to limit state subsidies to unprofitable industries and regions, and to transfer enterprises to full self-sufficiency. The share of total military expenditures was reduced (in 1991 - by 67-71%).

Results of the first stage.The results of the reforms were deeply contradictory.

On the one side, a market was introduced in Russia, trade liberalization eliminated the commodity deficit. Russian privatization fulfilled the task of dismantling the mechanism of centralized economic management.

On the other side, continued decline in industrial production (35%), there was a sharp decline in the standard of living of the people. Prices increased 100-150 times, while the average salary increased only 10-15 times.

As a result of the release of prices, the population's money was confiscated, which caused acute social discontent. High inflation led to a fall in the ruble exchange rate and made financial and monetary stabilization impossible.

In the course of the privatization process (sale of corporatized enterprises), the state property was redistributed, as a result, a significant part of it was concentrated in the hands of a small part of the country's population.

Economic development in 1993-1994

New government cabinet.In December 1992, the VII Congress of People's Deputies of Russia achieved the resignation of E.T. Gaidar from the post of acting prime minister. The new head of government was electedV.S. Chernomyrdin(former head of the oil and gas industry of the USSR).

TOadjusting the course of reforms... While maintaining the general direction of movement towards the market, the stake was made on the support of state-owned (including unprofitable) enterprises. Particular attention was paid to the fuel, energy and defense complexes, which again received significant loans from the government. Protectionism was also the main feature of Chernomyrdin's policies. Due to disagreement with the principles of reforming, appointed to the new cabinet by the Deputy Prime MinisterE.T. Gaidarand the finance ministerB.G. Fedorovat the beginning of 1994 they left the government, going into the parliamentary opposition.

In December 1992, the government adopted a unified wage tariff system, which made it possible to somewhat soften the situation in the budgetary sphere.

The main direction of the reform wasmass privatizationstate-owned enterprises in all industries. This process was coordinated by one of the Deputy Prime MinistersA.B. Chubais.

Results.By the end of 1993, nearly 40,000 enterprises were privatized. At the same time, under the conditions of corruption and super-monopolization, privatization had a number of negative consequences with obvious successes in a number of industries. In the course of privatization, the real value of fixed assets was underestimated by 20-30 times and, accordingly, the cost of privatization checks. In addition, at the enterprises privatized into the ownership of labor collectives, the real owner remained the director who disposes of the income.

During the first years of reforms, the number of private banks (up to 2000) and stock exchanges (303) increased. In agriculture, the share of state-owned enterprises was no more than 15% of land (24,000 collective farms). The rest turned into LLPs and JSCs, but for most farms this was the only change.

The decline in production in industry continued and amounted to 16.2%, in agriculture - 4% compared to 1992. In the absence of the necessary technical and economic base and government assistance, 14 thousand farms ceased their activities.

Economic development in 1995-1996

Attempts to stabilize the position... GovernmentV.S. Chernomyrdintried to stabilize the standard of living of the population by providing targeted support to some of the least protected strata. The entrepreneurial activity of citizens was encouraged, activities to attract foreign investment were intensified.

The priority task at the new stage was again proclaimedtight financial policy... To solve problems in this area and replenish the budget, the All-Russian Extraordinary Commission on Tax Policy was created. However, despite this, the government failed to contain the decline in production and the decline in economic efficiency.

Results of the first five years of reforms... In 1990, labor productivity in the economy was 19.4%, in 1995 - 13.5%; industrial growth in 1990 - 24.3%, in 1995 - 16.2%; growth Agriculture in 1990 - 20.7%, in 1995 - 14.8%. Appropriations for science and education have been significantly reduced from 2% to 0.32%.

The main reason for the process of further curtailment of industry and agriculture in the Russian economy is the unprofitableness of enterprises in world prices, their lack of competitiveness in the world market. In connection with the reduction in the share of expenditures for the needs of the agro-industrial complex (from 15% in 1991 to 3.2% in 1996) and the fall in the all-Russian gross harvest, the problem of food security in Russia arose. Against the background of a general decline in industrial production, there was an increase in the raw material orientation of the domestic industry. The share of these sectors for 1991-1996 increased by more than 2 times, while the share of mechanical engineering decreased by more than 20%, light industry by 62%. The share of total military spending in the structure of GDP decreased: from 7.6% in 1990 to 3.82% in 1997. As a result, Russia lost its traditional arms markets.

Foreign investment in the Russian economy... According to economists' calculations, the investment needs for the restructuring of the Russian economy for the next 15 years amount to $ 800 - 900 billion (Russia's internal reserves were equal to $ 400 - 600 billion). Foreign investments (loans, investments in shares of privatized enterprises, etc.) in the Russian economy at the beginning of 1996 amounted to $ 9 billion, while the size of Russia's external debt approached $ 130 billion (which amounted to 53% of GDP). But it is known that many countries owe Russia too (the debt of the developing countries to Russia as the successor to the USSR was $ 149 billion). Therefore, in order to speed up the refund process, Russia joined the London and Paris Club of creditor countries.

Economic development in 1997 early 1998

The new composition of the cabinet of the government of V.S. Chernomyrdin.In March 1997, the president dismissed the government. The main reason was the conduct of the All-Russian protest action on March 27, 1997, organized by trade unions and supported by the opposition. The reason for the protests of the workers was the continuing decline in the living standards of the population, non-payment of wages, social benefits and pensions. V.S. Chernomyrdin remained the head of the cabinet, and his first deputies were appointedA.B. Chubais(who became simultaneously finance minister) andB.E. Nemtsov(representative of Russian regions, governor of the Nizhny Novgorod region).

Asmain directionsactivities of the new government cabinet, such measures as the reform of natural monopolies, pension and communal reforms, and the reform of the government apparatus were named. The fight against corruption was declared an important task of the new cabinet, which was seen as one of the reasons for the decline in the authority of the Russian government. For these purposes, the declaration of income and property of managers, as well as members of their families, was introduced. The President even instructed to develop a code of ethical rules for a civil servant, as well as a Civil Service Code.

The new cabinet of ministers made a decision to abolish unjustified tax and customs benefits. Each purchase of goods or provision of services under a government order had to be carried out through open tenders.

The catastrophic situation in the field of finance by the spring of 1997 led to the adoptionsequestration lawfederal budget, that is, a reduction in government spending by 108 trillion. rub. (including a 30% reduction in costs for the defense industry, military-industrial complex, coal industries; 50% reduction in all other costs was envisaged).

The growing crisis in the economy.In the new 1998, the Chernomyrdin government took a number of measures to overcome the financial crisis (a new bankruptcy law was adopted, the ruble was denominated). However, in March-April, the situation continued to deteriorate, including in the social sphere (the next All-Russian protest action was scheduled for April 9). On March 31, by a presidential decree, the government headed by V.S. Chernomyrdin was dismissed. After difficult negotiations between the President and the State Duma, the new Prime Minister was approvedS.V. Kirienko.

Monetary and financial crisis of 1998. Economic development in 1998-2000. Economic course of S.V. Kirienko... In May-June, the deterioration of the situation in the financial market became catastrophic, which was caused, among other things, by a drop in world prices for raw materials (by 30% for metal and twice for oil) and for shares of Russian companies. The government issued a statement on tightening fiscal policy, simultaneously asking for help from the heads of state of the United States and Germany, as well as from the IMF. Clinton and Kohl supported the activities of the Russian authorities, and the IMF provided Russia with another $ 700 million loan. At the same time, negotiations continued on the provision ofstabilization loan(in the amount of 10-15 billion dollars) to prevent the devaluation of the ruble. At the same time, the government proposedanti-crisis(stabilization) program.

The main condition for issuing a loan from the World Bank for 1998 was called the fragmentation of natural monopolies. Therefore, the government began to develop a plan for vertical and horizontal restructuring in such sectors as oil transportation, energy, gas industry, railroad transport, telecommunications. They also discussed a plan to nationalize Gazexport and direct financial flows from gas exports directly (bypassing Gazprom) to the budget (i.e., an attempt to introduce a state monopoly on gas exports).

August socio-economic crisis... On August 17, 1998, Prime Minister S.V. Kiriyenko issued a statement on the termination of payments on state obligations and a moratorium on the payment of debts to foreign banks (default is a refusal from previously assumed obligations). On August 23, the resignation of the government of S.V. Kirienko followed. The consequences of the crisis were extremely difficult for the population. High inflation (up to 60%) and rising prices led to a decrease in real incomes of citizens by about a third. The drop in imports (6-7 times) caused a sharp reduction in customs duties as a traditional source of income for the treasury. The market infrastructure collapsed and the banking system and the securities market were in crisis.

Government Cabinet of E.M. Primakov... On September 11, 1998, E.M. Primakov was approved as the new head of government. The main principles of his policy were the introduction of stricter state regulation of the market, the limitation of monetary emission to the extent possible to prevent hyperinflation, the fight against criminalization in the economic sphere. The role of solid statesmen (E. Primakova, Y. Maslyukova(First Deputy Prime Minister, Chairman of the Ministry of State Property Management;V. Gerashchenko(Chairman of the Central Bank). The government took measures to administratively regulate the foreign exchange market under the leadership of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation. On October 1, 1998, a state monopoly on alcoholic beverages was introduced.

In search of a way out of the crisis... The government made attempts to achieve the restructuring of debt on GKOs and new Western loans, to prevent the seizure of foreign assets of Russian banks. The size of the internal and external debt of the RF in 1998 amounted to 158.8 billion dollars (of which the external 143 billion dollars). In the midst of the financial crisis in Russia, the West is trying to impose a number of favorable conditions on it (the requirement to increase VAT, maintain high duties for Russian exporters, change the budget ratio between the center and regions, slow down the export of Russian high technologies and increase the primary budget surplus by 2-3 times, that is, to cut down the social sphere even more). Against this background, a struggle unfolded in the upper echelons of power over the problems of overcoming the crisis. In May 1999, the government of E.M. Primakov was dismissed. The new head of the Cabinet of Ministers wasS.V. Stepashin, who was replaced in the summer of 1999Vladimir Putin,simultaneously publicly named the President's successor.

Political development

Political processes in 1991-1993

On June 12, 1990, even within the framework of the USSR,Declaration of sovereigntyRSFSR.

The democratization of the political process, which began during the perestroika period, led to the establishment of the principle of separation of powers in the political system of the RSFSR: into the executive (represented by the President) and legislative (the Supreme Soviet of the RSFSR). In 1993, the transitional nature of the Russian statehood was determined.confrontation between the two branches of government.In this situation, the President persistently defended the positions of the radical democrats and their course of reforms. At the All-Russian referendum on April 25, 1993, the majority of citizens voted for confidence in the President.

Political crisiserupted in the fall of 1993. On September 21, the President signed a decree announcing the dissolution of the Congress of People's Deputies and the Supreme Soviet, the holding of elections to new government bodies in December and a referendum on a new Constitution. Following this, the vice-president openly joined the ranks of the oppositionA.V. Rutskoi, Chairman of the Supreme CouncilR.I. Khasbulatov... The apogee of the constitutional crisis was the events of October 3-4, 1993, when armed clashes broke out on the streets of Moscow and blood was shed.

Political processes in 1993-1996.

Public sentiment and elections to the Federal Assembly. On December 12, 1993, elections were held to the new legislative body of Russia - a bicameralFederal Assembly(the upper chamber is the Federation Council, the lower one is the State Duma). The elections were held in constituencies and according to party lists.

The election results testified to the growing dissatisfaction of the population with the socio-economic situation in the country, and a significant drop in living standards. The problem of the weakness of the government, its corruption, the inability to ensure public safety, stop crime and solve other pressing problems has become tangible for the people. The growth of the national-patriotic idea in society was also significant. At the same time, a certain part of the electorate remained in the position of continuing the liberal reforms. A quarter of the popular vote receivedLiberal Democratic Partyheaded byV.V. Zhirinovsky, a significant number of votes were received by representativesCommunist Party of the Russian Federation (leader G.A. Zyuganov).15% of the votes were cast forRussia's choiceheaded byE.T. Gaidar;

Adoption of a new Constitution. Liquidation of the Soviet political system... On December 12, 1993, during a popular vote, a new Constitution of Russia was adopted. The Russian Federation was proclaimedpresidential republic... The system of local councils was liquidated, their functions were transferred to the representatives of the President. The new body of legislative power was declared a bicameral Federal Assembly.

The Constitution has significantly strengthened the position of the President. He became both head of state and head of government. The President concentrated in his hands the entirety of the executive power and was vested with significant legislative powers (including the right to dissolve the State Duma in the event of a threefold rejection of the Prime Minister's candidacy).

At the same time, a unified system of local government has not been formed. In a number of places, representative bodies practically do not participate in management. Mayors, governors, etc. rule. Moreover, in most cases these are elective positions, although sometimes we are talking about a leader appointed from above. In some regions, the influence of representative elected bodies is predominant.

Elections to the State Duma of the second convocation and presidential elections.On December 17, 1995, in the elections to the State Duma, out of 43 electoral blocs and associations, the 5% barrier was overcome by four of them -Communist Party, Liberal Democratic Party, Yabloko, pro-government associationOur home - Russia(did not pass the 5% barrier fractionWomen of Russia, motionRussia's choiceand etc.). The Communists won a relative majority in the State Duma. Representative of the faction of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation -G. Seleznevbecame the Chairman of the State Duma.

On June 16, 1996, the elections of the President of Russia took place. Refusing to support the discredited Zhirinovsky, a significant part of the population, dissatisfied with the results of the reforms, voted for the communists. Out of 10 candidates,B.N. YeltsinandG.A. Zyuganov... On July 3, the second round of the presidential elections took place, during whichB.N. Yeltsin(40% of the votes).

Political processes in 1996-1999. B.N. Yeltsinin the presidency coincided with a rather difficult period in the history of our state.

. On the1998 camethe peak of social conflict in society: On April 9, 1998, a general protest action took place, followed by student riots in Yekaterinburg, then a rail war of miners that paralyzed the work of the North-Western Railway (damage amounted to 9.5 million rubles). Miners, as well as scientists, teachers, students, are striving to repay their debts by the state, regularly pay wages, and improve the living standards of the population. Of particular concern in society is the tendency to merge power and private property (through the entry of financiers and entrepreneurs into the highest executive bodies), that is, elements of oligarchic rule in Russia.

Against this background, there is a noticeableactivation of radicalismin all its forms. Among the radical parties that are trying to use the difficult socio-political situation in the country to strengthen their own positions, the right-wing radicals stand out (nationalist - Russian National Unity, the party of Russian nationalists; national-patriotic (LDPR); left-wing radicals - one of which the Communist Party of the Russian Federation is the largest party in Russia 1.550 thousand people). The Communist Party of the Russian Federation, like the LDPR, use ethnic nationalism as their political slogans, reliance on the idea of ​​the collectivist character of the people as a means of reviving the greatness of the state. In this situation, the opposition focused its efforts on removing the president from power (impeachment) and forming a government of popular confidence.

Elections to the State Duma of the third convocation (December 19, 1999).After a difficult political pre-election struggle that unfolded in the fall of 1999, the new composition of the State Duma will be represented bysixelectoral associations. The Communist Party of the Russian Federation received the largest number of votes (24.22%). This will be the largest faction in the Duma, which, however, does not now have an opposition majority. The communists are followed by the pro-government Unity bloc (Bear, leaderS.Sh. Shoigu (23.37%),Further - Fatherland movement - All Russia, led by the leader -E.M. Primakov(12.64%) and the Union of Right Forces (leader S.V. Kirienko) (8.72%). The 5% barrier was also overcome by the Yabloko (6.13%) and Zhirinovsky Bloc (6.08%). The main sensation of the elections was the victory thanks to the applied electoral technologies of the interregional movement Unity, created only in October 1999 (that is, on the eve of the elections), and the weak results of the Yabloko unification, which lost a third of the votes. The union Our Home - Russia did not pass to the State Duma, which received only 1.2% (although its leaders V.S. Chernomyrdin and V. Ryzhkov won in single-mandate constituencies).

Political development in 2000

3.4.1. The resignation of B.N. Yeltsin. Activities of the acting President of the Russian Federation V.V. Putin.

3.4.2. Presidential Election March 2000

Evolution of Russian statehood.

After the collapse of the USSR, Russia from a constituent federal part of the union state turned into an independent federation (it includes 89 regions, 21 autonomous republics, 50 regions, 6 territories, 10 autonomous districts, 2 federal cities Moscow and St. Petersburg). Formed two levels of state power in the Russian Federation, federal and subjects of the Federation.

Changes in the social status of the republics.The leadership of the Russian Federation was faced with a priority task to build Russian statehood on the basis of federalism and decentralization of management. In 1991, the autonomous republics within the RSFSR declared their sovereignty, the autonomous regions declared themselves sovereign republics. The Islamic factor has acquired a special role in the national policy of the state (20 million people in Russia profess this religion). Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Yakutia directed their efforts to secede from the Russian Federation. The leadership of the Chechen Republic announced the severing of ties with the federal authorities and embarked on a course of armed confrontation with the center in the name of achieving independence.

Delineation of powers of the subjects of the federation.In order to preserve statehood in March 1992 in Moscow was signedFederated treaty, where the powers of the subjects of the federation were stipulated and the boundaries between them were designated. For the first time, all subjects of the Russian Federation received the right to create their own laws. In 1994, Tatarstan joined the agreement on special terms. Chechnya refused to sign it.

One of the problems for the Russian Federation is to ensure the legal status of national minorities. For this purpose, on June 19, 1996, theNational Cultural Autonomy Lawregulating the rights of national minorities that do not have their own state-territorial entities within the Russian Federation. An Advisory Council for the Protection of the Interests of Ethnic Communities has been created under the government of the Russian Federation.

Federal center and subjects of the Russian Federation... The diversity of the pace and scale of reforms, their economic and social consequences determined regional differences in the level of production, in the material situation of the population, in the demographic situation. Among the regions, the most privileged ones stand out (Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Sakha (Yakutia), which pay 1% to the federal budget (all the remaining 10%). There is also a group of highly profitable regions: Moscow, St. Petersburg, Samara, Moscow, Sverdlovsk regions, Krasnodar Territory At the same time, there are subsidized and highly subsidized regions of Kalmykia, Dagestan, Ingushetia, Tuva, Adygea, Buryat, Koryak, Chukotka, etc.

After the delineation of powers and the transition to the election of governors (1996), the federal government was forced to reckon with regional consciousness and the strengthening of local economic elites, as well as the emerging problem of economic separatism (failure to comply with federal laws and presidential decrees, government decrees, concealment of national incomes, etc.) ). This situation requires the adoption of constitutional laws to strengthen the influence of the Federal Center in the regions in order to preserve the integrity and security of the Russian statehood.

War in Chechnya.After the collapse of the USSR, the hottest point in Russia was North Caucasus... In December 1994, with the aim of restoring constitutional order in Chechnya, federal troops were brought in here, which led to a bloody two-year war, which was completed only by the fall of 1996.

In October, an agreement was reached in Khasavyurt to hold presidential elections and to postpone the issue of the political status of the Chechen Republic for five years. The elections took place on January 27, 1997. Colonel was elected President of the Chechen Republic.A.Maskhadov, proclaiming a course for the national independence of Chechnya. On May 12, 1997, the Treaty on Peace and Principles of Relations between the Russian Federation and the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria was signed.

After the end of the war in Chechnya, Russia faced the problem of terrorism in the North Caucasus, which in the fall of 1999 turned into a national problem. After a series of explosions in Buinakhsk, Moscow, Volgodonsk, militants from Chechen gangs began a policy of intimidating the Russian authorities. In response, the Russian government, headed by V.V. Putin decided to use force in the fight against terrorists. As a result, the second Chechen war began. The measures taken by Moscow have caused a mixed reaction in the world.INSERT

4. RESULTS

With the collapse of the USSR and the communist regime in the Russian Federation begannew stage of economic modernization... The reforms carried out in Russia in the 90s led to the dismantling of the main elements of the obsolete administrative system and the transition to economic methods of regulation. Private property has become a reality. New social strata of owners of various levels and top managers have formed. The liberalization of economic activity, prices and foreign trade contributed to the revitalization of the consumer market. It was possible to ensure the internal convertibility of the ruble. Russia has embarked on the path of integration into the world economy.

At the same time, the continued decline in production causedcomplication of the economic situationin the country, the aggravation of social problems, the strengthening of the stratification of society into rich and poor. The influence of the state bureaucracy on the economy remained enormous.

The current stage of Russia's renovation is characterized by the coexistence of opposing principles - elements of freedom and authoritarianism, the market and state management of the economy, the strengthening of central power and the desire for regional autonomy. In the balance of forces of supporters of different ways of development of Russian society, a kind of balance has developed, which is the basis for maintaininga high degree of alternativeness in the Russian political process.

The peculiarities of the period that the country is going through (a transitional nature, the lack of global experience of changes of this nature and scale) determined significant fluctuations in the economic and political course within the framework of the adopted direction for progressive reforms. Until nowno specific development model has been developed... At the same time, there is no doubt about both the need to use the Soviet and foreign experience, and the impossibility of a mechanical perception of Western models or a return to the Soviet past.

This stage in the history of Russia began precisely from the moment the Constitution of the Russian Federation was adopted at the national vote on December 12, 1993.Constitution of the Russian Federation- The fundamental law of the Russian Federation, has supreme legal force throughout the territory of the Russian Federation and is directly applicable.

Structure of the ConstitutionRF:preamble; the first section, which in turn is divided into nine chapters; second section.

Basic principles of the Constitution of the Russian Federation:supremacy of the Constitution and direct action of constitutional norms.

The draft Constitution of the Russian Federation was being preparedby a special constitutional commission on behalf of M.S. Gorbachev (President of the USSR), which was given at the I Congress of People's Deputies of the RSFSR 1990G.This commission included (and was headed by) the future first President of the Russian Federation B.N. Yeltsin.

General concept of the ConstitutionRFwas adopted at the first discussion of the draft constitution at the Congress of People's Deputies, but the draft was never approved. This made it difficult to prepare and implement the new Constitution of the Russian Federation.

Further, the need arose for more decisive measures by the supporters of the transition to a new democratic form of government in Russia. In August 1991, a coup took place in the system of power in Russia, as a result of which the head of the constitutional commission became the head of state.

At the beginning of 1993It wasconvened a Constitutional Conference, whichpreparedseveral draft constitutions (Boris Yeltsin took part in one of the projects). At the discussion of the draft constitution, the so-called presidential draft received the majority of votes (later it was nominated for a referendum). The main provisions of this Constitution of the Russian Federation:

- Russia has taken the path of forming a rule of law;

- man, his rights and freedoms are now proclaimed the highest value;

- The Constitution of the Russian Federation and federal legislation have supreme legal force;

- the state structure is built on the principles of federalism and the right of the small peoples of Russia to self-determination;

- the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia is proclaimed;

- a unified system of state authorities has been created;

- The principle of separation of powers is in effect in the Russian Federation.

Characteristicfeatures of the state and law of Russia after 1993:

- the highest authorities in the Russian Federation: the President (who is also the head of state). Federal Assembly (is a bicameral parliament). Government (the highest executive body);

- observedgeneral humanization of criminal and penal law in Russia(a moratorium on the use of the death penalty was introduced). In civil legal relations, private property is becoming increasingly important (its protection in the Russian Federation is carried out to the same extent as the protection of state property). For the first time, private ownership of land appeared legally (this was unacceptable during the USSR period);

- penalties are tightenedfor crimes against public safety and, first of all, for organizing and executing terrorist acts (this is still an urgent problem of our time).

"Cold War" is a term used to denote a period in world history from 1946 to 1989, characterized by the confrontation between two political and economic superpowers - the USSR and the United States, which are the guarantors of the new system of international relations created after the Second World War.

Origin of the term.

It is believed that for the first time the expression "Cold War" was used by the famous British science fiction writer George Orwell on October 19, 1945 in the article "You and the Atomic Bomb". In his opinion, the countries possessing nuclear weapons will dominate the world, while a "cold war" will be constantly going on between them, that is, a confrontation without direct military clashes. His forecast can be called prophetic, since at the time of the end of the war, the United States possessed a monopoly on nuclear weapons. At the official level, this expression sounded in April 1947 from the lips of the adviser to the President of the United States, Bernard Baruch.

Churchill's Fulton speech

After the end of World War II, relations between the USSR and the Western allies began to deteriorate rapidly. Already in September 1945, the Joint Chiefs of Staff approved the idea of ​​a first strike by the United States against a potential adversary (meaning the use of nuclear weapons). On March 5, 1946, the former British Prime Minister, in his speech at Westminster College in the city of Fulton in the United States in the presence of US President Harry Truman, formulated the goals of a "fraternal association of English speaking peoples", urging them to rally to defend the "great principles of freedom and rights person. " "From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste on the Adriatic, the iron curtain has descended over the European continent," and "Soviet Russia wants ... the unlimited spread of its strength and its doctrines." Churchill's Fulton speech is considered a turn to the beginning of the Cold War between East and West.

"Truman Doctrine"

In the spring of 1947, the US President promulgated his "Truman Doctrine" or the doctrine of "containment of communism," according to which "the world as a whole must accept the American system," and the United States must fight any revolutionary movement, any claims of the Soviet Union. The decisive factor in this was the conflict between the two ways of life. One of them, according to Truman, was based on individual rights, free elections, legal institutions and guarantees against aggression. The other is on control of the press and funds mass media, imposing the will of the minority on the majority, on terror and oppression.

One of the instruments of containment was the American plan of economic aid, announced on June 5, 1947 by US Secretary of State J. Marshall, who announced the provision of gratuitous aid to Europe, which would be directed “not against any country or doctrine, but against hunger, poverty, despair. and chaos. "

Initially, the USSR and the countries of Central Europe showed interest in the plan, but after negotiations in Paris, a delegation of 83 Soviet economists led by V.M. Molotov left them at the direction of V.I. Stalin. The 16 countries that joined the plan received significant assistance from 1948 to 1952, its implementation actually completed the division of spheres of influence in Europe. The communists lost their positions in Western Europe.

Cominformburo

In September 1947, at the first meeting of the Communist Bureau (Information Bureau of Communist and Workers' Parties), A.A. Zhdanov on the formation of two camps in the world - "the imperialist and anti-democratic camp, which has as its main goal the establishment of world domination and the defeat of democracy, and the anti-imperialist and democratic camp, which has as its main goal the undermining of imperialism, the strengthening of democracy and the elimination of the remnants of fascism." The creation of the Cominformburo meant the emergence of a single center for the leadership of the world communist movement. In Eastern Europe, the communists completely take power into their own hands, many opposition politicians leave for emigration. Socio-economic transformations on the Soviet model are beginning in the countries.

Berlin Crisis

The stage of the deepening of the "cold war" was the Berlin crisis. Back in 1947. the Western allies set out to create a West German state on the territories of the American, British and French occupation zones. In turn, the USSR tried to oust the allies from Berlin (the western sectors of Berlin were an isolated enclave within the Soviet zone of occupation). As a result, the "Berlin crisis" took place, i.e. transport blockade of the western part of the city from the side of the USSR. However, in May 1949, the USSR lifted restrictions on transportation to West Berlin. In the autumn of the same year, the division of Germany took place: in September the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG) was created, in October the German Democratic Republic (GDR). An important consequence of the crisis was the establishment by the US leadership of the largest military-political bloc: 11 states Western Europe and the United States signed the North Atlantic Treaty on Mutual Defense (NATO), according to which each side pledged to provide immediate military assistance in the event of an attack on any country in the bloc. In 1952, Greece and Turkey joined the pact, in 1955 - the FRG.

"Arms race"

Another characteristic feature The Cold War has become an arms race. In April 1950, the National Security Council directive "US National Security Objectives and Programs" (SNB-68) was adopted, which was based on the following provision: than negotiations with the Soviet leadership are impossible. " Hence the conclusion was drawn about the need to build up American military potential. The directive focused on a crisis confrontation with the USSR "until there is a change in the nature of the Soviet system." Thus, the USSR was forced to join the arms race imposed on it. In 1950-1953 the first armed local conflict with the participation of two superpowers took place in Korea.

After the death of I.V. Stalin, the new Soviet leadership, headed by G.M. Malenkov, and then took a number of major steps to mitigate international tension. Having stated that “there is no such controversial or unresolved issue that could not be resolved peacefully”, Soviet government agreed with the United States to end the Korean War. In 1956 N.S. Khrushchev proclaimed a course of preventing war and declared that "there is no fatal inevitability of war." Later in the Program of the CPSU (1962) it was emphasized: “Peaceful coexistence of socialist and capitalist states is an objective necessity for the development of human society. War cannot and should not serve as a way to resolve international disputes. "

In 1954, Washington adopted the military doctrine of "massive retaliation", which provided for the use of the full power of the American strategic potential in the event of an armed conflict with the USSR in any region. But in the late 50s. the situation changed dramatically: in 1957 the Soviet Union launched the first artificial satellite, and in 1959 commissioned the first submarine with a nuclear reactor on board. Under the new conditions of the development of weapons, a nuclear war lost its meaning, since it would not have had a winner in advance. Even taking into account the superiority of the United States in the number of accumulated nuclear weapons, the USSR's nuclear missile potential was sufficient to inflict "unacceptable damage" on the United States.

In the circumstances of nuclear confrontation, a series of crises took place: on May 1, 1960, an American reconnaissance aircraft was shot down over Yekaterinburg, pilot Harry Powers was captured; in October 1961 the Berlin crisis broke out, the “Berlin Wall” appeared, and a year later the famous Cuban Missile Crisis happened, which brought all of humanity to the brink nuclear war... A kind of result of the crises was the onset of detente: on August 5, 1963, the USSR, Great Britain and the United States signed an agreement in Moscow banning nuclear weapons tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under water, and in 1968, an agreement on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.

In the 60s. when the Cold War was in full swing, in the face of confrontation between two military blocs (NATO and the Warsaw Pact Organization since 1955), Eastern Europe was under the complete control of the USSR, and Western Europe was in a strong military-political and economic alliance with the United States, the main the arena of the struggle between the two systems became the countries of the "third world", which often led to local military conflicts around the world.

"Discharge"

By the 70s, the Soviet Union had reached an approximate military-strategic parity with the United States. In terms of the aggregate nuclear missile power, both superpowers acquired the possibility of "guaranteed retaliation", that is, retaliation of unacceptable damage to a potential adversary.

In his message to Congress on February 18, 1970, President R. Nixon outlined three components of US foreign policy: partnership, military force, and negotiation. Partnership concerned allies, military force and negotiations - "potential adversaries".

New here was the attitude towards the enemy, expressed in the formula "from confrontation to negotiations." On May 29, 1972, the countries signed the Fundamentals of Relations between the USSR and the United States, emphasizing the need for peaceful coexistence of the two systems. Both sides committed themselves to doing everything possible to prevent military conflicts and nuclear war.

The structural documents of these intentions were the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (ABM) and the Interim Agreement on Certain Measures in the Field of the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (SALT-1), which sets the limit for the build-up of arms. Later, in 1974, the USSR and the USA signed a protocol according to which they agreed to anti-missile defense of only one area: the USSR covered Moscow, and the USA covered the base for launching interballistic missiles in the state of North Dakota. The ABM Treaty was in effect until 2002, when the United States withdrew from it. The result of the policy of "detente" in Europe was the holding of the All-European Conference on Security and Cooperation in Helsinki in 1975 (CSCE), which proclaimed the refusal to use force, the inviolability of borders in Europe, and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.

In 1979 in Geneva, at a meeting between US President John Carter and the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, a new Treaty on the Limitation of Strategic Offensive Arms (SALT-2) was signed, which reduced the total number of nuclear carriers to 2,400 and provided for restraining the process of modernizing strategic weapons. However, after the introduction of Soviet troops into Afghanistan in December 1979, the United States refused to ratify the treaty, although its clauses were partially respected by both sides. At the same time, a rapid reaction force was being created to defend American interests anywhere in the world.

Third World

Apparently, at the end of the 70s. In Moscow, the point of view was formed that in the conditions of achieved parity and the policy of "detente", it is the USSR that has the foreign policy initiative: there is a build-up and modernization of conventional weapons in Europe, the deployment of medium-range missiles, a large-scale build-up of naval forces, active participation in supporting friendly regimes in countries third world. Under these conditions, a course of confrontation prevailed in the United States: in January 1980, the President proclaimed the Carter Doctrine, according to which the Persian Gulf was declared a zone of American interests and the use of armed force was allowed to protect it.

With the coming to power of R. Reagan, a large-scale modernization program was undertaken different types weapons using new technologies, with the goal of achieving strategic superiority over the USSR. It is Reagan who owns the famous words that the USSR is an "empire of evil", and America is "the people chosen by God" to implement the "sacred plan" - "to leave Marxism-Leninism in the ashes of history." In 1981-1982. restrictions on trade with the USSR were introduced, in 1983 a program of strategic defense initiative or the so-called “ star wars"Designed to create a multilayer defense of the United States against intercontinental missiles. At the end of 1983, the governments of Great Britain, Germany and Italy agreed to deploy American missiles on their territory.

End of the Cold War

The last stage of the Cold War is associated with serious changes that took place in the USSR after the coming to power of the new leadership of the country, headed by the one who pursued a policy of “new political thinking” in foreign policy. A real breakthrough was at the highest level between the USSR and the United States in November 1985, the parties came to a consensus that "a nuclear war should not be unleashed, there can be no winners in it," and their goal is "to prevent an arms race in space and its termination on Earth ”. In December 1987, a new Soviet-American meeting took place in Washington, which ended with the signing of the Treaty on the Elimination of Intermediate-Range and Shorter-Range Missiles (500 to 5.5 thousand km) in nuclear and non-nuclear equipment. These measures included regular mutual control over the implementation of agreements, thus, for the first time in history, a whole class of advanced weapons was destroyed. In 1988, the USSR formulated the concept of "freedom of choice" as universal principle international relations, the Soviet Union began to withdraw its troops from Eastern Europe.

In November 1989, during a spontaneous uprising, the symbol of the Cold War, the concrete wall separating West and East Berlin, was destroyed. In Eastern Europe, there is a series of "velvet revolutions", the communist parties are losing power. On December 2-3, 1989, a meeting took place in Malta between the new US President George W. Bush and M.S. Gorbachev, at which the latter confirmed the "freedom of choice" for the countries of Eastern Europe, proclaimed a course of 50% reduction in strategic offensive arms. The Soviet Union renounced its zone of influence in Eastern Europe. Following the meeting, M.S. Gorbachev said that “the world is emerging from the Cold War era and is entering new era". For his part, George W. Bush stressed that "the West will not try to take advantage of the unusual changes taking place in the East." In March 1991, the OVD was officially disbanded, and in December the Soviet Union collapsed.

Introduction. 2

1. Causes of the Cold War. 3

2. "Cold War": beginning, development. 6

2.1 The beginning of the cold war .. 6

2.2 The culmination of the Cold War .. 8

3. Consequences, results and lessons of the Cold War. eleven

3.1 Political, economic and ideological consequences of the Cold War .. 11

3.2 The results of the cold war and whether its outcome was predetermined ... 14

Conclusion. 17

Literature. nineteen

Introduction

Not only history, but also the attitude towards it knows sharp turns, denoting the qualitative stages of the political, social, moral development of human society. With a sufficient degree of reliability, we can say: when civilization steps over the superstitions of power, everyone will agree that the Cold War - one of the saddest chapters of the 20th century - was the product of, first of all, human imperfections and ideological prejudices. It might well not have been. It would not exist if the actions of people and the actions of states were consistent with their words and declarations.

Nonetheless, the Cold War struck humanity. The question arises: why did yesterday's combat allies suddenly turn into enemies who are cramped on the same planet? What prompted them to exaggerate past mistakes and add many new ones to them? This did not fit with common sense, not to mention the allied duty and elementary notions of decency.

The Cold War did not break out overnight. She was born in the crucible of the "hot war" and left a very noticeable imprint on the course of the latter. Many in the United States and England perceived interaction with the USSR in the fight against the aggressors as forced, contrary to their affections and interests, and secretly, and some clearly dreamed that the battles, which London and Washington had watched for a long time, would exhaust the forces of Germany. and the Soviet Union.

Many not only dreamed, but worked out variants of strategy and tactics behind tightly closed doors, counting on gaining a "decisive advantage" in the final direct war, when the time came to take stock, and on actively using this advantage against the USSR.

G. Hopkins, F. Roosevelt's adviser, wrote in 1945 that some overseas "really wanted our (American armies), passing through Germany, to start a war with Russia after the defeat of Germany." And who knows how things would have turned out in reality if the cards had not been confused by the unfinished war with Japan and the need for help from the Red Army, in order, as they calculated then, "to save up to a million American lives."

The relevance of the study is that the Cold War was a sharp confrontation between the two systems on the world stage. It became especially acute in the late 40s - 60s. There was a time when the severity subsided somewhat, and then intensified again. The Cold War covered all spheres of international relations: political, economic, military and ideological.

Currently, in connection with the deployment of the US missile defense system and the negative attitude of representatives of a number of countries, including Russia, to this, since the missiles will be located near the Russian borders, this topic is becoming especially acute.

Purpose of the work: to consider the "cold war" in Russia, its causes and origins, development.

1. Causes of the Cold War

The prologue of the Cold War can be attributed to the final stage of the Second World War. In our opinion, not the last role in its origin was played by the decision of the leadership of the United States and England not to inform the USSR about the work on the creation of atomic weapons. To this can be added Churchill's desire to open a second front not in France, but in the Balkans, and to advance not from West to East, but from south to north, in order to block the path of the Red Army. Then in 1945 there were plans to push back Soviet troops from the center of Europe to the pre-war borders. And finally, in 1946, a speech at Fulton.

In Soviet historiography, it was generally recognized that the Cold War was unleashed by the United States and its allies, and the USSR was forced to take retaliatory, most often adequate, measures. But at the very end of the 1980s and in the 1990s, other approaches were also discovered in the coverage of the Cold War. Some authors began to argue that it is generally impossible to determine its chronological framework and establish who started it. Others blame both sides - the United States and the USSR - as the culprits of the Cold War. Some accuse the Soviet Union of foreign policy mistakes that led, if not to outright unleashing, then to expansion, aggravation and prolonged continuation of the confrontation between the two powers.

The term "cold war" itself was introduced in 1947 by the US Secretary of State. They began to denote the state of political, economic, ideological and other confrontation between states and systems. In one government document of Washington of that time it was written: the "cold war" is the essence of "real war", the stake in which is "the survival of the free world."

What were the reasons for the Cold War?

The economic reasons for the change in US policy was that the US became immeasurably rich during the war years. With the end of the war, they were threatened by a crisis of overproduction. At the same time, the economies of European countries were destroyed, their markets were open to American goods, but there was nothing to pay for these goods. The United States was afraid to invest in the economies of these countries, since there was a strong influence of the left forces and the environment for investment was unstable.

In the United States, a plan was developed, called the Marshall. European countries were offered assistance to rebuild their ruined economies. Loans were given to buy American goods. The proceeds were not exported, but invested in the construction of enterprises on the territory of these countries.

The Marshall Plan was adopted by 16 states of Western Europe. The political condition for assistance was the removal of communists from governments. In 1947, the communists were removed from the governments of Western European countries. Help was also offered to Eastern European countries. Poland and Czechoslovakia began negotiations, but, under pressure from the USSR, refused to help. At the same time, the United States tore up the Soviet-American loan agreement and passed a law banning exports to the USSR.

The ideological rationale for the Cold War was the Truman Doctrine, put forward by the President of the United States in 1947. According to this doctrine, the conflict between Western democracy and communism is irreconcilable. The tasks of the United States are to fight communism all over the world, "contain communism", "push communism into the borders of the USSR." American responsibility for events taking place around the world was proclaimed, all these events were viewed through the prism of the confrontation between communism and Western democracy, the USSR and the USA.

Speaking about the origins of the Cold War, according to many historians, it is illogical to try to completely whitewash one side and place all the blame on the other. Today, American and British historians have long recognized partial responsibility for what happened after 1945.

In order to understand the origin and essence of the Cold War, let us turn to the events of the history of the Great Patriotic War.

Since June 1941, the Soviet Union fought Nazi Germany in heavy single combat. Roosevelt called the Russian front “the biggest support”.

The great battle on the Volga, according to the biographer of Roosevelt and his assistant Robert Sherwood, "changed the whole picture of the war and the prospects for the near future." As a result of one battle, Russia became one of the world's great powers. The victory of the Russian troops at the Kursk Bulge dispelled in Washington and London all doubts about the outcome of the war. The collapse of Hitlerite Germany was now only a matter of time.

Accordingly, in the corridors of power in London and Washington, the question arose whether the anti-Hitler coalition had not exhausted itself, wasn’t it time to trumpet the anti-communist gathering?

Thus, already in the course of the war, in some circles in the United States and England, plans were being considered, having passed through Germany, to start a war with Russia.

The fact of negotiations that Germany was conducting at the end of the war with the Western powers on a separate peace is widely known. In Western literature, the Wolf case is often described as the first operation of the Cold War. It can be noted that the "Wolf-Dallas affair" was the largest operation against F. Roosevelt and his course, begun during the president's lifetime and designed to upset the implementation of the Yalta agreements.

Roosevelt was succeeded by Truman. At a White House meeting on April 23, 1945, he questioned the usefulness of any agreements with Moscow. "It needs to be broken now or never ..." - he said. This refers to Soviet-American cooperation. So Truman's actions canceled the years of Roosevelt's work, when the foundations of mutual understanding with Soviet leaders were laid.

On April 20, 1945, at a meeting with, the American President, in an unacceptable manner, demanded that the USSR change its foreign policy in the spirit pleasing to the United States. Less than a month later, without any explanation, supplies to the USSR under Lend-Lease were stopped. In September, the United States set unacceptable conditions for the Soviet Union to receive a previously promised loan. As Professor J. Geddis wrote in one of his works, the USSR was demanded that "in exchange for an American loan, it change its system of government and renounce its sphere of influence in Eastern Europe."

Thus, contrary to sober thinking in politics and strategy, the concept of permissiveness, based on the monopoly of atomic weapons, has taken the leading place.

2. "Cold War": the beginning, development

2.1 The beginning of the cold war

So, at the final stage of the war, the rivalry between the two trends in US and British policy sharply intensified.

During the Cold War, the use of force or its threat became the rule. The desire to establish its dominance, to dictate on the part of the United States began to manifest itself for a long time. After World War II, the United States used all means to achieve its goal - from negotiations at conferences, at the United Nations, to political, economic, and even military pressure in Latin America, in Western Europe, and then in the Near, Middle and Far East. The main ideological cover for their foreign policy doctrine was the struggle against communism. Typical in this respect were the slogans: "rejection of communism", "politics on the edge of a knife", "balancing on the brink of war."

From the NSS document 68, declassified in 1975, and approved in April 1950 by President Truman, it is clear that the United States then decided to build relations with the USSR only on the basis of constant crisis confrontation. One of the main goals in this direction was the achievement of US military superiority over the USSR. The task of American foreign policy was to "accelerate the disintegration of the Soviet system."

Already in November 1947, the United States began to introduce a whole system of restrictive and prohibitive measures in the spheres of finance and trade, which marked the beginning of an economic war between the West and the East.

During 1948, there was a progressive advancement of mutual claims in the economic, financial, transport and other spheres. But the Soviet Union took a more compliant position.

American intelligence reported that the USSR was not preparing for war and was not carrying out mobilization measures. At the same time, the Americans understood that their operational-strategic position in the center of Europe was losing.

This is evidenced by the entry in the diary of the influential US politician William Legey for June 30, 1948: “The American military situation in Berlin is hopeless, since there is no sufficient force anywhere and there is no information that the USSR is experiencing inconvenience due to internal weakness. It would be in the interests of the United States to leave Berlin. However, the Soviet side soon agreed to lift the blockade.

This is the outline of the events that threatened to lead humanity to the third world war in 1948.

2.2 The climax of the Cold War

The years 1949-1950 were the culmination of the Cold War, marked by the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty on April 4, 1949, whose "openly aggressive nature" was tirelessly exposed by the USSR, the Korean War and the rearmament of Germany.

1949 was an "extremely dangerous" year, since the USSR no longer doubted that the Americans would remain in Europe for a long time. But he also brought satisfaction to the Soviet leaders: the successful test of the first Soviet atomic bomb in September 1949 and the victory of the Chinese communists.

The strategic military plans of that time reflected the national interests and capabilities of the country, the realities of that time. So, the country's defense plan for 1947 set the following tasks for the Armed Forces:

ü Ensure a reliable reflection of aggression and the integrity of the borders in the west and east, established by international treaties after the Second World War.

ü Be ready to repel enemy air attacks, including the use of atomic weapons.

ü To the Navy to repel possible aggression from sea areas and to provide support for actions for this purpose by ground forces.

Soviet foreign policy decisions during the emergence of the Cold War were mainly reciprocal in nature and were determined by the logic of struggle, and not the logic of cooperation.

In contrast to its policy in other regions of the world, in the Far East, the USSR has acted extremely cautiously since 1945. The entry of the Red Army into the war with Japan in August 1945 allowed him to restore in this region the positions lost in 1905 by the tsarist empire. On August 15, 1945, Chiang Kai-shek agreed to the Soviet presence in Port Arthur, Dairen and Manchuria. With Soviet support, Manchuria became an autonomous communist state headed by Gao Gang, who was apparently closely associated with Stalin. At the end of 1945, the latter called on the Chinese communists to find a common language with Chiang Kai-shek. This position has been confirmed several times over the years.

The fact that, beginning in the summer of 1947, the political and military situation had changed in favor of the Chinese Communists did not, on the whole, change the reserved attitude of the Soviet leadership towards the Chinese Communists, who were not invited to the meeting dedicated to the founding of the Comintern.

Soviet enthusiasm for the "Chinese brothers in arms" manifested itself only after the final victory of Mao Zedong. On November 23, 1949, the USSR established diplomatic relations with Beijing. One of the main factors in the agreement was the general hostility towards the United States. That this was so was openly confirmed a few weeks later, when the Security Council refused to exclude nationalist China from the UN, the USSR withdrew from all its organs (until August 1950).

It was thanks to the absence of the USSR that the Security Council was able on June 27, 1950 to adopt a resolution on the introduction of American waxes into Korea, where the North Koreans had crossed the 38th parallel two days earlier.

According to some modern versions, Stalin pushed North Korea to this step, who did not believe in the possibility of US retaliatory actions after they "abandoned" Chiang Kai-shek and wanted to compete with Mao in the Far East. Nevertheless, when China, in turn, entered the war on the side of North Korea, the USSR, faced with a firm position of the United States, tried to preserve the local character of the conflict.

To a greater extent than the conflict in Korea, the "headache" of Soviet foreign policy in the early 1950s was the issue of the FRG's integration into the West. political system and its rearmament. On October 23, 1950, the foreign ministers of the Eastern European camp gathered in Prague proposed to sign a peace treaty with Germany, providing for its demilitarization and the withdrawal of all foreign troops from it. In December, the Western countries agreed to a meeting, but demanded that all the problems on which there was a confrontation between the West and the East were discussed at it.

In September 1951, the US Congress passed the Mutual Security Act, which granted the right to finance anti-Soviet and counter-revolutionary émigré organizations. On its basis, significant funds were allocated for the recruitment of persons living in the Soviet Union and other countries of Eastern Europe, and payment for their subversive activities.

Speaking of the "cold war", one cannot but touch upon the topic of conflicts capable of escalating into an atomic war. Historical analyzes of the causes and course of crises during the Cold War years leave much to be desired.

So far, there are three documented cases in which American policy headed for war. In each of them, Washington deliberately risked an atomic war: during the Korean War; in the conflict over the Chinese islands of Kuemoy and Mazu; in the Cuban crisis.

The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 convincingly testified that the nuclear missile arsenals of both powers are not only sufficient, but also redundant for mutual destruction, that a further quantitative build-up of nuclear potential cannot give advantages to either country.

Thus, already at the beginning of the 60s it became obvious that even in the context of the Cold War, only compromises, mutual concessions, understanding of each other's interests and the global interests of all mankind, diplomatic negotiations, the exchange of truthful information, the adoption of emergency rescue measures against the emergence of the immediate threat of nuclear war are nowadays an effective means of conflict resolution. This is the main lesson of the Cuban missile crisis.

Being a product of the psychology of the Cold War, he clearly showed the vital need to discard the categories of former thinking and adopt a new way of thinking, adequate to the threats of the nuclear-missile age, global interdependence, the interests of survival and global security. As you know, the Cuban missile crisis ended with a compromise; the USSR removed Soviet ballistic missiles and IL-28 medium-range bombers from Cuba. In response, the United States gave guarantees of non-interference in Cuba's affairs and removed the Jupiter missiles from Turkey, and then from Great Britain and Italy. Nevertheless, militaristic thinking was far from being eradicated, continuing to dominate politics.

In September 1970, the London International Institute for Strategic Studies announced that the USSR was approaching nuclear parity with the United States. On February 25, 1971, the Americans heard President Nixon's radio address: "Today, neither the United States nor the Soviet Union has a clear nuclear advantage."

In October of the same year, preparing for the Soviet-American summit, he said at a press conference: “If there is a new war, if there is a war between superpowered powers, then no one will win. That is why the moment has come to settle our differences, to settle them taking into account our differences of opinion, recognizing that they are still very deep, recognizing, however, that at the moment there is no alternative to negotiations. "

Thus, the recognition of the realities of the nuclear age led in the early 70s to a revision of policy, to a turn from the Cold War, to detente, to cooperation between states with different social systems.

3. Consequences, outcomes and lessons of the Cold War

3.1 Political, economic and ideological consequences of the Cold War

The United States constantly sought to preempt the USSR and to be the initiators both in politics and in the economy and, especially, in military affairs. At first they were in a hurry to use their advantage, which consisted in the possession of an atomic bomb, then in the development of new types military equipment and weapons, thereby pushing the Soviet Union to rapid and adequate actions. Their main goal was to weaken the USSR, to destroy it, to tear away its allies from it. By drawing the USSR into the arms race, the United States thus forced it to strengthen the army at the expense of funds intended for internal development, to improve the well-being of the people.

In recent years, some historians have accused the Soviet Union of adopting and implementing measures that allegedly helped the United States pursue its policy of confrontation and strengthening of the Cold War. However, the facts tell a different story. The United States, together with its Western allies, began to pursue its special line from Germany. In the spring of 1947, at a session of the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, representatives of the United States, Britain and France announced their rejection of the decisions previously agreed upon with the Soviet Union. By their unilateral actions, they put the eastern zone of occupation in a difficult position and consolidated the division of Germany. By carrying out monetary reform in the three western zones in June 1948, the three powers actually provoked the Berlin crisis, forcing the Soviet occupation authorities to shield the eastern zone from currency manipulation and protect its economy and monetary system. For these purposes, a system of checking citizens arriving from West Germany was introduced and the movement of any transport was prohibited in case of refusal to check. Western occupation authorities have prohibited the population of the western part of the city from accepting any help from East Germany and organized the supply West Berlin by air, while simultaneously strengthening anti-Soviet propaganda. Later, such an informed person as J. F. Dulles spoke about the use of the Berlin crisis by Western propaganda.

In line with the Cold War, the Western powers carried out such foreign policy actions as the split of Germany into two states, the creation of a military Western alliance and the signing of the North Atlantic Pact, which was already mentioned above.

This was followed by the formation of military blocs and alliances in different parts of the world under the pretext of ensuring mutual security.

In September 1951, the United States, Australia and New Zealand form the Political-Military Alliance (ANZUS).

On May 26, 1952, representatives of the United States, England and France, on the one hand, and the Federal Republic of Germany, on the other, sign in Bonn a document on the participation of West Germany in the European Defense Community (EOS), and on May 27, Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Holland and Luxembourg conclude an agreement in Paris on the creation of this bloc.

In September 1954, in Manila, the United States, England, France, Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Philippines and Thailand sign the Collective Defense Treaty South-East Asia(SEATO).

In October 1954, the Paris agreements were signed on the remilitarization of the FRG and its inclusion in the Western Union and NATO. They come into force in May 1955.

In February 1955, a military Turkish-Iraqi alliance (Baghdad Pact) was created.

The actions of the United States and its allies demanded a response. On May 14, 1955, a collective defensive alliance of socialist states - the Warsaw Pact Organization - was formed. This was a response to the creation of the NATO military bloc and the inclusion of the FRG in it. The Warsaw Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance was signed by Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, East Germany, Poland, Romania, USSR and Czechoslovakia. It was purely defensive in nature and was not directed against anyone else. Its task was to protect the socialist gains and peaceful labor of the peoples of the countries participating in the treaty.

If a collective security system was created in Europe, the Warsaw Pact should have lost its force from the date of entry into force of the all-European treaty.

To make it difficult for the Soviet Union to resolve issues of post-war development, the United States imposed a ban on economic ties and trade with the USSR and the countries of Central and Southeastern Europe. The delivery to these countries was interrupted even for the previously ordered and already finished equipment, Vehicle and various materials. A list of items prohibited for export to the USSR and other countries of the socialist camp was specially adopted. This created certain difficulties for the USSR, but caused serious damage and industrial enterprises West.

In September 1951, the American government canceled the trade agreement with the USSR that had existed since 1937. Adopted at the beginning of January 1952, the second list of goods prohibited for export to socialist countries, was so wide that it included goods from almost all industries.

3.2 Outcomes of the Cold War and Was Its Outcome Predetermined

What was the Cold War for us, what are its results and lessons from the point of view of the changes that have taken place in the world?

It is hardly legitimate to characterize the Cold War with one-sided definitions - either as another conflict in the history of mankind, or as a long-lasting peace. This point of view was adhered to by J. Gaddis. Apparently, this historical phenomenon bore the features of both.

In this regard, I agree with Academician G. Arbatov, who believes that the antagonisms and instability generated by the Second World War carried the same possibility of a military conflict as those that developed after the First World War.

In any case, the Berlin Crisis of 1953, and especially the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962, could well have culminated in a third world war. A general military conflict did not arise only due to the "dissuasive" role of nuclear weapons.

Political scientists and ideologists around the world have tried many times to clearly define the concept of "cold war" and identify its most characteristic features. From the standpoint of today, in conditions when the "cold war" became part of the past, it is quite obvious that it was primarily political course of the opposing sides, conducted from a position of strength on a kind of ideological basis.

In the economy and trade, this manifested itself in blocs and discriminatory measures against each other. In propaganda activities - in the formation of the "image of the enemy." The goal of such a policy in the West was to contain the spread of communism, to protect the "free world" from it. In the East, the goal of such a policy was also seen in the protection of peoples, but from the "pernicious influence of the decaying Western world."

Now it is futile to look for the blame of one of the parties as the main reason for the emergence of the Cold War. It is quite obvious that there was a general "blindness" in which, instead of a political dialogue, preference was given to confrontation between the leading states of the world - the USSR and the USA.

The transition to confrontation happened elusively quickly. A circumstance of exceptional importance was also the fact that nuclear weapons appeared on the world stage.

The "Cold War" as a whole complex of phenomena had a huge impact on the general growth of tension in the world, on the increase in the number, scale and severity of local conflicts. There is no doubt that without the established climate of the Cold War, many crisis situations in various regions of the planet would most likely have been extinguished by the concerted efforts of the world community.

Speaking about the peculiarities of the Cold War, it should be said that in our country for a long time everything related to nuclear weapons was anathema. Allegedly for moral reasons. Again, the question arises of what prevented the development of an armed conflict when the world was literally on the verge of war?

This, in my opinion, is the fear of total annihilation, which sobered politicians, reoriented public opinion, made them remember eternal moral values.

Fear of mutual annihilation led to the fact that international politics ceased to be exclusively "the art of diplomats and soldiers." It actively involved new subjects - scientists, transnational corporations, mass media, public organizations and movements, individuals. They all brought their own interests, beliefs and goals into it, including those based solely on moral considerations.

So who won this war?

Now, after the lapse of time, which has put everything in its place, it has become clear that humanity as a whole has emerged victorious, since the main result of the Cuban missile crisis, like the Cold War as a whole, turned out to be an unprecedented strengthening of the moral factor in world politics.

Most researchers note the exceptional role of ideology in the Cold War.

In this case, the words said by General de Gaulle are correct: "The banner of ideology from the moment of the birth of the world, it seems, did not cover anything except human ambitions." A country that proclaimed itself the bearer of universal moral values, unceremoniously rejected morality when it came to its own interests or the ability to win back at least one point in a political struggle with the enemy.

The question is legitimate: if the policy of the West in post-war history was based not on momentary state interests, but solely on the principles proclaimed in international law, in democratic constitutions, and finally in the biblical commandments, if the requirements of morality were addressed primarily to oneself, would an arms race and local wars take place? There is still no answer to this question, since humanity has not yet accumulated the experience of politics based on moral principles.

At present, the "triumph" of the United States, won by them in the short term, now seems to the Americans as something completely different, maybe even a defeat in the long term.

On the other hand, having suffered defeat in the short term, the Soviet Union, or rather, its heirs, did not at all deprive themselves of chances in the long term. Reforms and changes in Russia give it a unique opportunity to answer the questions facing civilization as a whole. The chance that Russia has given the world today, having saved it from the exhausting arms race and the class approach, it seems to me, can be qualified as a moral achievement. And in this regard, I agree with the authors of the article "Were there any winners in the Cold War" B. Martynov.

This circumstance is also noted by many foreign politicians.

I believe that its outcome was predetermined, since a military equilibrium had developed in the world, and in the event of a nuclear threat, there would be no survivors.

Conclusion

The Cold War quite naturally became a kind of fusion of the traditional, forceful confrontation not only between two military blocs, but also two worldview concepts. Moreover, the struggle over moral values ​​was of a secondary, auxiliary character. A new conflict was avoided only thanks to the presence of nuclear weapons.

The fear of mutually guaranteed destruction, on the one hand, became a catalyst for moral progress in the world (the problem of human rights, ecology), and on the other, the cause of the economic and political collapse of the society of so-called real socialism (the unbearable burden of the arms race).

As history shows, not a single socio-economic model, no matter how economically effective it is, has a historical perspective, if it is not based on any firm moral postulates, if the meaning of its existence is not focused on achieving universal humanistic ideals.

The common victory of humankind as a result of the Cold War may be the triumph of moral values ​​in politics and in the life of society. Russia's contribution to achieving this goal has determined its position in the world in the long term.

The end of the Cold War should not, however, lull the peoples and governments of the two great states, as well as the entire population. The main task of all healthy, realistically thinking forces society to prevent a secondary return to it. This is relevant in our time, because, as noted, there is a possible confrontation due to the deployment of the missile defense system, as well as in connection with the conflicts that have recently arisen between Russia and Georgia, Russia and Estonia, the former Soviet republics.

Refusal of confrontation of thinking, cooperation, mutual consideration of interests and security - this is the general line in relations between countries and peoples living in the nuclear-missile era.

The Cold War years provide a basis for the conclusion that, in opposing communism and revolutionary movements, the United States primarily fought against the Soviet Union, as the country that presented the greatest obstacle to their implementation. main goal- establishing their dominance over the world.

Literature

1., Vdovin of Russia. 1938 - 2002 .-- M .: Aspect-Press, 2003 .-- 540 p.

2., Pronin G. Truman "spared" the USSR // Military History Journal. - 1996. - No. 3. - P. 74 - 83.

3., Falin unleashed the "cold war" // Pages of the history of Soviet society. - M., 1989 .-- S. 346 - 357.

4. Wallerstein I. America and the world: today, yesterday and tomorrow // Free thought. - 1995. - No. 2. - P. 66 - 76.

5. Vert N. History of the Soviet state. 1900 - 1991: Per. with fr. - 2nd ed., Rev. - M .: Progress-Academy, 1994 .-- 544 p.

6. Geddis J. Two views on one problem // Pages of the history of Soviet society. - M., 1989 .-- S. 357 - 362.

7. History of Russia: XX century: A course of lectures / Ed. .- Yekaterinburg: USTU, 1993 .-- 300 p.

9. Martynov B. Were there winners in the Cold War? // Free thought. - 1996. - No. 12. - P. 3 - 11.

10. Recent history of the Fatherland. XX century. T. 2: Textbook for university students / Ed. ,. - M .: VLADOS, 1999 .-- 448 p.

11., Elmanov international relations and foreign policy of Russia (1648 - 2000): Textbook for universities / Ed. ... - M .: Aspect Press, 2001 .-- 344 p.

12., Tyazhelnikov's Soviet history. / Ed. ... - M .: Higher school, 1999 .-- 414 p.

13. Pages of the history of Soviet society: Facts, problems, people / Under total. ed. ; Compiled by and others - M .: Politizdat, 1989 .-- 447 p.

14. Fedorov S. From the history of the "cold war" // Observer. - 2000. - No. 1. - P. 51 - 57.

15. Ferrets A. Lessons of the Cold War // Free Thought. - 1995. - No. 12. - S. 67 - 81.

Pages of the history of Soviet society. - M., 1989 .-- S. 347.

And other history of international relations and foreign policy of Russia. - M .: Aspect Press, 2001 .-- S. 295.

And other history of international relations and foreign policy of Russia. - M .: Aspect Press, 2001 .-- P. 296.

Pronin G. Truman "spared" the USSR // Military-political journal. - 1996. - No. 3. - P. 77.

Pages of the history of Soviet society. - M., 1989 .-- S. 365.

And other history of international relations and foreign policy of Russia. - M .: Aspect Press, 2001 .-- P. 298.

And other history of international relations and foreign policy of Russia. - M .: Aspect Press, 2001 .-- S. 299.

Martynov B. Were there winners in the Cold War // Free Thought. - 1996. - No. 12. - P. 7.

We do not want a single inch of foreign land. But we will not give up our land, not a single tip of our land to anyone.

Joseph Stalin

The Cold War is a state of contradiction between the two dominant world systems: capitalism and socialism. Socialism represented the USSR, and capitalism, for the most part, the USA and Great Britain. Today it is popular to say that the Cold War is a confrontation at the level of the USSR-USA, but at the same time they forget to say that the speech of British Prime Minister Churchill led to the formal declaration of war.

Causes of the war

In 1945, contradictions began to appear between the USSR and other members of the anti-Hitler coalition. It was clear that Germany had lost the war, and now the main question is the post-war world order. Here, everyone tried to pull the blanket in their direction, which took a leading position relative to other countries. The main contradictions were in European countries: Stalin wanted to subordinate them to the Soviet system, and the capitalists tried to prevent the Soviet state from entering Europe.

The reasons for the Cold War are as follows:

• Social. Cohesion of the country in the face of a new enemy.
• Economic. Struggle for sales markets and resources. The desire to weaken the economic power of the enemy.
• Military. An arms race in case a new open war breaks out.
• Ideological. The enemy's society is presented exclusively in negative connotations. The struggle between two ideologies.

The active stage of the confrontation between the two systems begins with the US atomic bombing of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If we consider this bombing in isolation, then it is illogical - the war is won, Japan is not a competitor. Why bomb cities with such weapons? But if we consider the end of the Second World War and the beginning of the Cold War, then in the bombing it appears the purpose of showing a potential enemy their strength, and showing who should be in charge in the world. And the factor of nuclear weapons was very important in the future. After all, the USSR had an atomic bomb only in 1949 ...

The beginning of the war

If we briefly consider the Cold War, then its beginning today is associated exclusively with Churchill's speech. Therefore, they say that the beginning of the Cold War is March 5, 1946.

Churchill's speech on March 5, 1946

In fact, Truman (President of the United States) made a more specific speech, from which it became clear to everyone that the Cold War had begun. And Churchill's speech (it is not difficult to find it on the Internet and read it today) was superficial. It talked a lot about the Iron Curtain, but not a word about the Cold War.

Stalin's interview, February 10, 1946

On February 10, 1946, the Pravda newspaper published an interview with Stalin. Today this newspaper is very difficult to find, but this interview was very interesting. In it, Stalin said the following: “Capitalism always gives rise to crises and conflicts. This always creates a threat of war, which is a threat to the USSR. Therefore, we must restore the Soviet economy at an accelerated pace. We must prioritize heavy industry over consumer goods. "

This speech of Stalin turned upside down and it was on it that all Western leaders relied, who spoke about the desire of the USSR to start a war. But, as you can see, in this speech of Stalin there was not even a hint of the militaristic expansion of the Soviet state.

The real start of the war

To say that the beginning of the Cold War was connected with Churchill's speech is a bit illogical. The fact is that at the time of 1946 it was just the former Prime Minister of Great Britain. It turns out a kind of theater of absurdity - the former Prime Minister of England officially starts the war between the USSR and the USA. In reality, everything was different, and Churchill's speech was just a convenient excuse, on which it was later beneficial to write off everything.

The real start of the Cold War should be attributed at least to 1944, when it was already clear that Germany was doomed to defeat, and all the allies were pulling the blanket over themselves, realizing that it was very important to gain dominance over the post-war world. If we try to draw a more accurate line of the beginning of the war, then the first serious disagreements on the topic of "how to live further" between the allies happened at the Tehran conference.

Specificity of the war

For a correct understanding of the processes that took place during the Cold War, you need to understand what this war was in history. Today, more and more people say that it was actually the third world war. And this is a huge mistake. The fact is that all the wars of mankind that were before that, including including the Napoleonic wars and 2 world wars, these were the warriors of the capitalist world for the rights dominated in a certain region. The Cold War was the first global war where there was a confrontation between two systems: capitalist and socialist. Here they may object to me that in the history of mankind there have been wars where religion, rather than capital, was at the forefront: Christianity against Islam and Islam against Christianity. This objection is partly true, but only from happiness. The fact is that any religious conflicts cover only part of the population and part of the world, while the global cold war has engulfed the entire world. All countries of the world could be clearly divided into 2 main groups:

1. Socialist. Recognized the dominance of the USSR and received funding from Moscow.
2. Capitalist. Recognized US dominance and received funding from Washington.

There were also "undefined" ones. There were few such countries, but they were. Their main specificity was that outwardly they could not decide which camp to join, so they received funding from two sources: from Moscow and from Washington.

Who started the war

One of the problems of the Cold War is the question of who started it. Indeed, there is no army here that crosses the border of another state, and thus declares war. Today you can blame everything on the USSR and say that it was Stalin who started the war. But this hypothesis is in trouble with the evidence base. I will not help our "partners" and look for what motives the USSR could have for the war, but I will give facts why Stalin did not need the aggravation of relations (at least not directly in 1946):

• Nuclear weapon. It appeared in the USA in 1945, and in the USSR in 1949. You can imagine that the over-calculating Stalin wanted to aggravate relations with the United States when the enemy has a trump card in his sleeve - nuclear weapons. At the same time, let me remind you, there was also a plan for the atomic bombing of the largest cities of the USSR.
• Economy. The United States and Great Britain, by and large, made money on the Second World War, so they had no economic problems. The USSR is another matter. The country needed to rebuild its economy. By the way, the United States had 50% of the world GNP in 1945.

The facts show that in 1944-1946 the USSR was not ready to start a war. And Churchill's speech, which formally started the Cold War, was delivered not in Moscow, and not at its submission. But on the other hand, both opposing camps were extremely interested in such a war.

On September 4, 1945, the United States adopted Memorandum 329, which developed a plan for the atomic bombings of Moscow and Leningrad. In my opinion, this is the best proof of who wanted war and aggravation of relations.

Goals

Any war has goals and it is surprising that our historians for the most part do not even try to define the goals of the Cold War. On the one hand, this is justified by the fact that the USSR had only one goal - the expansion and strengthening of socialism by any means. But Western countries were more inventive. They sought not only to spread their world influence, but also to inflict spiritual blows on the USSR. And it continues to this day. The following goals of the United States in the war can be distinguished in terms of historical and psychological impact:

1. Substitute concepts at the historical level. Note that under the influence of these ideas, today all the historical personalities of Russia who worshiped Western countries are presented as ideal rulers. At the same time, all those who advocated the rise of Russia are presented by tyrants, despots and fanatics.
2. The development of an inferiority complex in the Soviet people. All the time they tried to prove to us that we are somehow different, that we are guilty of all the problems of humanity, and so on. Largely because of this, people so easily perceived the collapse of the USSR and the problems of the 90s - it was a "payback" for our inferiority, but in fact the enemy simply achieved the goal in the war.
3. Blackening of history. This stage continues to this day. If you study Western materials, then our entire history (literally all) is presented as one continuous violence.

There are, of course, pages of history with which one can reproach our country, but most of the stories are sucked from the finger. Moreover, liberals and Western historians for some reason forget that it was not Russia that colonized the whole world, it was not Russia that destroyed the indigenous population of America, it was not Russia that shot the Indians from cannons, tying 20 people in a row to save nuclei, it was not Russia that exploited Africa. You can recall thousands of such examples, because every country in history has hard-hitting stories. Therefore, if you really want to poke around in the bad events of our history, be so kind as not to forget that Western countries have no less such stories.

The stages of the war

The stages of the Cold War are one of the most controversial issues, since it is very difficult to gradate them. Nevertheless, I can suggest dividing this war into 8 key stages:

• Preparatory (193-1945). The world war was still going on and formally the "allies" acted as a united front, but there were already disagreements and everyone began to fight for post-war world domination.
• Beginning (1945-1949). The time of complete hegemony of the United States, when the Americans manage to make the dollar a single world currency and the country's positions are strengthened in almost all regions except those in which the USSR army was located.
• The height (1949-1953). Key factors of 1949, which make it possible to single out this year as a key one: 1 - the creation of atomic weapons in the USSR, 2 - the economy of the USSR reaches the indicators of 1940. After that, an active confrontation began, when the United States could no longer speak with the USSR from a position of strength.
• First discharge (1953-1956). The key event was the death of Stalin, after which the start of a new course was announced - the policy of peaceful coexistence.
• A new round of the crisis (1956-1970). The events in Hungary led to a new round of tension, which lasted almost 15 years, during which the Cuban missile crisis also fell.
• Second discharge (1971-1976). This stage of the Cold War, in short, is associated with the beginning of the work of the commission for the removal of tensions in Europe, and with the signing of the Final Act in Helsinki.
• Third crisis (1977-1985). A new round when the cold war between the USSR and the USA reached its climax. The main point of confrontation is Afghanistan. In terms of military development, the country staged a "wild" arms show.
• The end of the war (1985-1988). The end of the Cold War falls on 1988, when it became clear that the "new political thinking" in the USSR was ending the war and so far only de facto recognized the American victory.

These are the main stages of the Cold War. As a result, socialism and communism lost to capitalism, since the moral and psychological influence of the United States, which was openly directed at the leadership of the CPSU, achieved its goal: the leadership of the party began to put their personal interests and benefits above socialist foundations.

Forms

The confrontation between the two ideologies began in 1945. Gradually, this confrontation encompassed all spheres of public life.

Military confrontation

The main military confrontation of the Cold War era is a struggle between two blocs. On April 4, 1949, NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) was created. NATO includes the United States, Canada, England, France, Italy and a number of small countries. In response, on May 14, 1955, the OVD (Warsaw Pact Organization) was created. Thus, there was a clear confrontation between the two systems. But again, it should be noted that the first step was taken by the Western countries, which organized NATO 6 years earlier than the Warsaw Pact appeared.

The main confrontation, which we have already partially discussed, is atomic weapons. In 1945, this weapon appeared in the United States. Moreover, America has developed a plan for delivering nuclear strikes against 20 largest cities in the USSR, using 192 bombs. This forced the USSR to do even the impossible to create its own atomic bomb, the first successful tests of which took place in August 1949. In the future, all this resulted in an arms race on a huge scale.

Economic confrontation

In 1947, the United States developed the Marshall Plan. According to this plan, the United States provided financial assistance to all countries affected by the war. But in this regard, there was one limitation - only those countries that shared the political interests and goals of the United States received assistance. In response, the USSR begins to provide assistance in post-war reconstruction to countries that have chosen the path of socialism. Based on these approaches, 2 economic blocks were created:

• Western European Union (ZEU) in 1948.
• Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) in January 1949. The organization, in addition to the USSR, included: Czechoslovakia, Romania, Poland, Hungary and Bulgaria.

Despite the formation of alliances, the essence has not changed: ZEV helped with money from the United States, and CMEA helped with money from the USSR. The rest of the countries only consumed.

In the economic confrontation with the United States, Stalin took two steps that had an extremely negative effect on the American economy: on March 1, 1950, the USSR moved away from calculating the ruble in dollars (as it was all over the world) to gold backing, and in April 1952, the USSR, China and the countries of Eastern Europe are creating an alternative trade zone to the dollar. This trading zone did not use the dollar at all, which means that the capitalist world, which previously owned 100% of the world market, lost at least 1/3 of this market. All this took place against the backdrop of the "economic miracle of the USSR." Western experts said that the USSR would be able to reach the 1940 level after the war only by 1971, but in reality this happened already in 1949.

Crises

These are the main crises of the Cold War, but there were also others, less significant. Next, we will briefly consider what the essence of these crises was and what consequences they led to the world.

Military conflicts

In our country, many do not take the Cold War seriously. We have an understanding in our minds that war is "checkers bald", arms in hand and in the trenches. But the Cold War was different, although even in it there were regional conflicts, some of which were extremely difficult. The main conflicts of those times:

• The split of Germany. Formation of the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic.
• Vietnam War (1946-1954). Has led to the division of the country.
• Korean War (1950-1953). Has led to the division of the country.

Berlin Crisis of 1948

For a correct understanding of the essence of the Berlin crisis of 1948, you should study the map.

Germany was divided into 2 parts: western and eastern. Berlin was also in the zones of influence, but the city itself was located deep in the eastern lands, that is, in the territory controlled by the USSR. In an effort to put pressure on West Berlin, the Soviet leadership organized a blockade. It was a response to Taiwan's recognition and admission to the UN.

England and France organized an air corridor, supplying the inhabitants of West Berlin with everything they needed. Therefore, the blockade failed and the crisis itself began to slow down. Realizing that the blockade will lead nowhere, the Soviet leadership is lifting it, normalizing the life of Berlin.

The continuation of the crisis was the creation of two states in Germany. In 1949, the western lands were transformed into the Federal Republic of Germany (FRG). In response, the German Democratic Republic (GDR) was created in the eastern lands. It is these events that should be considered the final split of Europe into 2 opposing camps - the West and the East.

Revolution in China

In 1946, a civil war broke out in China. The communist bloc staged an armed coup in an effort to overthrow the government of Chiang Kai-shek from the Kuomintang party. Civil war and revolution were made possible by the events of 1945. After the victory over Japan, a base was created here for the rise of communism. Beginning in 1946, the USSR began supplying weapons, foodstuffs and everything else necessary to support the Chinese communists who were fighting for the country.

The revolution ended in 1949 with the formation of the People's Republic of China (PRC), where the full power was in the hands of the Communist Party. As for the Chiang Kai-shekists, they fled to Taiwan and formed their own state, which was very quickly recognized in the West, and even accepted it into the UN. In response to this, the USSR leaves the UN. This is an important point because it has big influence to another Asian conflict - the Korean War.

Formation of the State of Israel

From the first meetings of the UN, one of the main questions was the fate of the state of Palestine. At that time, Palestine was actually a British colony. The division of Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state was an attempt by the United States and the USSR to strike at Great Britain and its positions in Asia. Stalin approved of the idea of ​​creating the state of Israel, because he believed in the power of the "left" Jews, and hoped to gain control over this country, gaining a foothold in the Middle East.

The Palestinian problem was resolved in November 1947 at the UN Assembly, where the position of the USSR played a key role. Therefore, we can say that Stalin played a key role in the creation of the state of Israel.

The UN Assembly decided to create 2 states: Jewish (Israel »Arab (Palestine). In May 1948, Israel declared independence and immediately the Arab countries declared war on this state. The Middle East crisis began. Great Britain supported Palestine, the USSR and the USA - Israel. In 1949, Israel won the war, and immediately a conflict arose between the Jewish state and the USSR, as a result of which Stalin broke off diplomatic relations with Israel.The battle in the Middle East was won by the United States.

Korean war

The Korean War is an undeservedly forgotten event that is little studied today, which is a mistake. After all, the Korean War is the third in history in terms of human casualties. During the war, 14 million people died! More victims in only two world wars. The large number of casualties is due to the fact that this was the first major armed conflict in the framework of the Cold War.

After the victory over Japan in 1945, the USSR and the USA divided Korea (the former colony of Japan) into zones of influence: reconciled Korea - under the influence of the USSR, South Korea - under the influence of the United States. 2 states were officially formed in 1948:

• Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK). Zone of influence of the USSR. Leader - Kim Il Sung.
• The Republic of Korea. Zone of influence of the USA. Leader - Lee Seung Mann.

With the support of the USSR and China, on June 25, 1950, Kim Il Sung begins the war. In fact, it was the war for the unification of Korea, which the DPRK planned to end quickly. The factor of a quick victory was important, because it was the only way to prevent the United States from getting involved in the conflict. The start was promising, with 90% American UN troops coming to the aid of the Republic of Korea. After that, the DPRK army was retreating and was close to collapse. The situation was saved by Chinese volunteers who intervened in the war and restored the balance of power. After that, local battles began and the border between North and South Korea was established along the 38th parallel.

The first detente of the war

The first detente in the Cold War took place in 1953 after Stalin's death. An active dialogue began between the warring countries. Already on July 15, 1953, the new government of the USSR, headed by Khrushchev, announced its desire to build new relations with Western countries, based on a policy of peaceful coexistence. Similar statements were made from the opposite side.

The end of the Korean War and the establishment of diplomatic relations between the USSR and Israel became a big factor in stabilizing the situation. Wanting to demonstrate the desire for peaceful coexistence to the fallen countries, Khrushchev brought Soviet troops from Austria, having obtained a promise from the Austrian side to remain neutral. Naturally, there was no neutrality, just as there were no concessions or gestures from the United States.

The discharge lasted from 1953 to 1956. During this time, the USSR established relations with Yugoslavia, India, began to develop relations with African and Asian countries, which had only recently freed themselves from colonial dependence.

A new round of tension

Hungary

At the end of 1956, an uprising began in Hungary. Local residents, realizing that the position of the USSR after Stalin's death, became noticeably worse, raised an uprising against the current regime in the country. As a result, the Cold War has come to its important point. For the USSR, there were 2 ways:

1. Recognize the right of the revolution to self-determination. This step would give all other countries dependent on the USSR the understanding that at any moment they can leave socialism.
2. Suppress the insurgency. This approach was contrary to the principles of socialism, but this was the only way to maintain the leading position in the world.

Option 2 was chosen. The army suppressed the rebellion. For suppression in some places it was necessary to use weapons. As a result, the revolution was defeated, it became clear that the "detente" was over.

Caribbean crisis

Cuba is a small country near the United States, but it almost led the world to a nuclear war. In the late 50s, a revolution took place in Cuba and power was seized by Fidel Castro, who declared his desire to build socialism on the island. For America, this was a challenge - a state appeared close to their border, which acts as a geopolitical adversary. As a result, the US planned to resolve the situation by military means, but were defeated.

The Krabi crisis began in 1961 after the USSR secretly delivered missiles to Cuba. This soon became known, and the US President demanded that the missiles be withdrawn. The parties escalated the conflict until it became clear that the world was on the verge of a nuclear war. As a result, the USSR agreed to withdraw its missiles from Cuba, and the United States agreed to withdraw its missiles from Turkey.

"Prague Vienna"

In the mid-1960s, new tensions arose - this time in Czechoslovakia. The situation here was very similar to that which was earlier in Hungary: democratic tendencies began in the country. Basically, young people opposed the current government, and the movement was headed by A. Dubcek.

A situation arose, as in Hungary, - it would allow a democratic revolution to be carried out, meant to give an example to other countries that the socialist system could be overthrown at any moment. Therefore, the Warsaw Pact countries sent their troops to Czechoslovakia. The mutiny was suppressed, but the suppression sparked worldwide outrage. But it was a cold war, and, of course, any active actions of one side were actively criticized by the other side.

Detente in the war

The peak of the Cold War came in the 50s and 60s, when the aggravation of relations between the SSR and the United States was so great that a war could break out at any moment. Beginning in the 70s, the detente of the war and the subsequent defeat of the USSR began. But in this case, I want to dwell briefly on the United States. What happened in this country before "detente"? In fact, the country ceased to be a people's country and came under the control of the capitalists, under which it is to this day. It can be said even more - the USSR won the Cold War against the United States in the late 60s, and the United States, as a state of the American people, ceased to exist. The capitalists seized power. The apogee of these events is the assassination of President Kennedy. But after the United States became a country representing capitalists and oligarchs, they already won the USSR in the Cold War.

But back to the Cold War and detente in it. These signs were identified in 1971 when the USSR, the USA, England and France signed an agreement on the beginning of the work of a commission to resolve the Berlin problem, as a point of constant tension in Europe.

Final act

1975 saw the most significant event in the Cold War era of detente. During these years, a pan-European meeting on security was held, in which all European countries took part (of course, including the SSR, as well as the USA and Canada). The meeting was held in Helsinki (Finland), therefore it went down in history as the Helsinki Final Act.

As a result of the congress, an Act was signed, but before that there were difficult negotiations, first of all, on 2 points:

• Freedom of the media in the USSR.
• Freedom of departure "from" and "to" the USSR.

The commission from the USSR agreed to both points, but in a special wording, which did not oblige the country itself to anything. The final signing of the Act was the first symbol that the West and the East can agree between themselves.

New aggravation of relations

In the late 70s and early 80s began new round Cold War, when relations between the USSR and the United States heated up. There were 2 reasons for this:

The United States deployed medium-range missiles in Western Europe that were capable of reaching the territory of the USSR.

The beginning of the war in Afghanistan.

As a result, the Cold War reached a new level and the enemy went about their usual business - the arms race. It hit the budgets of both countries very painfully and ultimately led the United States to a terrible economic crisis in 1987, and the USSR to defeat in the war and subsequent collapse.

Historical meaning

Surprisingly, in our country the Cold War is not taken seriously. Best fact demonstrating attitude to this historical event here and in the west, this is the spelling of the name. Our "Cold War" is written in all textbooks in quotes and with a capital letter, in the West - without quotes and with a small letter. This is the difference in attitude.

It really was a war. Simply in the understanding of people who have just defeated Germany, war is a weapon, shots, attack, defense, and so on. But the world has changed, and in the Cold War, contradictions and ways of resolving them came to the fore. Of course, this also resulted in real armed clashes.

In any case, the outcome of the Cold War is important, because as a result of its results the USSR ceased to exist. The war itself ended there, and Gorbachev received a medal in the United States "for victory in the Cold War."