There is a deep-rooted belief in the United States that the day is not far off when the country will collapse

J. Friedman, political scientist

The modern world is characterized by a significant increase in the chaos of world politics. Unpredictability in this area is becoming higher than in economics

Y. Novikov, General Director of the Almaz-Antey VKO Concern

In order to answer the question about the possibility of analyzing and forecasting the current international situation, it is important, first of all, to agree on what we understand by the term “international situation”, i.e. about the subject of research, and try to give it at least the most general characteristics, describe its structure, nature and main modern features. In this case, the main possible directions of analysis and forecast of MO become clear.

In this work, the term “international situation” refers to the state of the entire system of international relations in a certain period of time, which is characterized by a number of parameters and criteria, numbering thousands of indicators:

The composition, level of development and politics of the main sovereign subjects of international organizations - primarily local human civilizations, nations and states, as well as their alliances, coalitions and other associations;

The composition, influence and policies of the main non-state actors of international organizations - both international and national - which include the entire spectrum of such actors: humanitarian, social, religious, etc.;

The main trends in the development of humanity and its human life cycle, as well as in individual regions.

These trends (such as globalization) can be contradictory and have multidirectional impacts;

Influence subjective factors, which are mainly derived from the development of national human capital and its institutions. These factors, associated with the “cognitive revolution” and the policies of the ruling elites, are, strictly speaking, the area in which the most important resource of humanity and the art of using it come together;

Finally, the relationships and interactions between all these factors and trends, which create a unique international situation and the resulting military-political, financial-economic, social and other situations.

Thus, the subject of analysis and strategic forecast are numerous factors and trends and their interaction and mutual influence, forming a complex dynamic and multifactorial system. Thus, if we consider modern defense and higher education only from the point of view of military expenditures of individual countries, then the ratio of the military budgets of Russia and the United States will be 1: 12, and for Russia and France and England 1: 1.1 and 1: 1.2, respectively. If this ratio is measured by the ratio of Russian military expenditures and the military expenditures of the Western LCC and its allies, then this ratio will already be 1:21.

Thus, the recent RAND report, devoted to a comparison of the military potentials of the PRC and the United States, provides a huge number of indicators - basic, additional, auxiliary, etc., and criteria. As an example, we can compare only the strategic nuclear forces (SNF) of the United States and China by:

Ranges;

Type of location;

BR types;

Years of testing;

Warheads;

Numbers, etc., as well as a short-term forecast of their condition for 2017.

But the analysis of MO and HPO involves not only quantitative, but also qualitative comparison and comparison of a wide variety of parameters, including, for example, such complex ones as the survivability of nuclear forces after the use of a counterforce nuclear strike. Thus, in 1996, such a US attack against China was assessed as the almost complete destruction of China’s strategic nuclear forces.

It is difficult to imagine that such a volume of work is being done in Russia today, anywhere else. If there are forecasts for the development of individual countries and regions (not all of them and not for all the main parameters), if there are some forecasts for the development of global trends, then there is no general, systemic forecast for the development of the Ministry of Defense, and therefore of higher education. This means that when assessing the necessary defense expenditures of Russia, for example, state program weapons (GPV) for the period 2018–2025, the approaches of the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Defense differ by 100% (12 and 24 trillion rubles), which from a military-political point of view requires the most serious justification.

Considering that in these same years, GDP growth in the country, according to the Ministry of Finance, will not be significant, and the share of military expenditures in GDP (4.15%) will remain at the same level, this means that the country’s financial capabilities are strictly limited: it is necessary either to increase the share of military expenditures in GDP to the level of the warring countries (Israel ~ 7% or Iraq ~ more than 20%), or reduce items of expenditure on social needs and development, or - which is the most difficult, but also the most effective - increase the efficiency of military expenditures, reconsidering priorities. At the same time, we already have examples of this approach: in 2014, the military themselves said that, due to the unification of products, they managed to reduce the GPV-2025 from 55 trillion to 35 trillion rubles.

Thus, the identification of resources and the implementation of other measures to counter external challenges and threats is largely predetermined by the most accurate analysis and forecast of the future defense and military education that shape these challenges. When in the mid-30s of the 20th century the USSR and especially after 1938 set a course to maximize the pace of military development, the share of military expenditures and the degree of militarization of the country obviously exceeded all peaceful norms. Naturally, such political decisions were made, first of all, based on an assessment of the future state of defense and higher education in the world.

To try to more clearly and simply imagine the complexity and scale of such an analysis, it is necessary to try to understand what MO is, even in the most general terms. To do this, you can use the technique of drawing up a mind map (sometimes called a “mind map”, which was made popular by the English psychologist Tony Buzan) - an associative map - which is a method of structuring the state of individual systems and concepts ( rice. 7 ). It gives, in the most general approximation, an idea of ​​the state of abstract MO in a certain period of time. Naturally, the dynamics and scale of changes occurring in all groups of factors, actors and trends and between them turns this state into a kind of temporary “episode” of life, requiring constant dynamic adjustment.

Rice. 7. Abstract structure of IR in the 21st century

It is obvious that the positions of not only individual actors and states, but also LCCs can change, and trends can accelerate, slow down or die out.

This “thought map” of ideas about defense in the 21st century only identifies the main groups of factors and trends that shape defense and, as part and consequence of it, the military-political situation, as well as other areas of defense - socio-cultural, financial-economic, trade , industrial, etc., which are a specific consequence and result of the development of MO.

The international situation is developing according to a variety of scenarios, which are being realized in certain specific variants. Thus, the Defense Ministry of 1946–1990 was characterized by its development according to the scenario “ cold war“, although there were periods when, within the framework of this scenario, it developed according to the option of “détente of international tension” (1972–1979), or the option of “exacerbation of international relations.” None of these options completely denied the peculiarities of the development of the indicated scenario of international defense (“Cold War”), but in their specific variants, of course, influenced the formation of higher education programs and joint ventures.

Accordingly, if we want to analyze current state, and even more so make a strategic forecast for the development of the Ministry of Defense, then we must take into account as fully as possible not only the existing state of (at least the main) factors and trends, but also the degree of mutual influence and interaction between them, the possibility and likelihood of the development of the Ministry of Defense in one way or another script.

It is obvious that such enormous information and analytical work can only be done by a fairly large and qualified team, uniting specialists in a variety of fields - from “regional specialists” and “country specialists” to experts in the field of science, technology, technology, psychology, finance, etc. . It is very important that this team has not only the appropriate information capabilities and tools, but also a sufficiently deeply developed theoretical framework, methodology and specific techniques.

So, in this case, at the CVPI MGIMO in last years The method of strategic forecasting of scenarios and options for their development is widely used.

Based on this experience, we can say that our team was only at the very beginning of the development of theoretical and methodological foundations for the development of IR. It is also necessary to recognize that currently various scientific teams are making a variety of attempts at such strategic analysis and forecast. In some cases (as in the USA, for example), huge joint teams are involved intelligence services, corporations and individual efforts of university scientists. In other examples (as in Russia), relatively small teams of the Ministry of Defense and the General Staff, the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Ministry of Education, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and other departments are used, working, as a rule, in accordance with allocated grants on a medium-term basis.

In any case, it should be recognized that due to the crisis in departmental and academic humanitarian - international and military - science, the quality of analysis and forecast for the development of defense and higher education has sharply decreased. A striking example is the absence of a well-known, intelligible forecast of the real nature of relations with the West in 1985–2015, when the authors of such well-known (one must admit, few and private) forecasts noted the “successful development of the Moscow Region.” In many ways, it was this, as well as the lack of professionalism of the political elites, that led to the largest foreign policy mistakes, comparable to the crimes that were a consequence of the foreign policy course of M. Gorbachev, E. Shevardnadze, A. Yakovlev and B. Yeltsin. This course led to the collapse of the world socialist system- essentially a local human civilization led by the “Russian core” of the USSR, - as well as the Warsaw Warfare, Comecon and, ultimately, the USSR, and then underestimating the real intentions of the West towards Russia.

Another strategic failure in foreign policy (now Russia) was its naive orientation towards “Western partners” to the detriment of its national interests and the interests of its remaining friends and allies in the 90s of the 20th century and at the beginning of the new century, which is partially preserved today.

Finally, the most important mistake, not only foreign policy, but also civilizational, was the one-sided orientation towards the Western system of values, norms and rules, which were initially created as unequal and unfair - be it in finance or sports - for other countries. This mistake led to catastrophic consequences for Russian humanities, effectively depriving it of theoretical and methodological foundations, scientific personnel, and public and political “interest” (need). Only in the most recent years have some old institutions begun to be revived and new ones (Russian Historical and Geographical Societies, for example) to be created.

Thus, over the course of 30 years, Soviet-Russian politics and diplomacy have made at least several strategic mistakes on a global scale, some of which even led to a “geopolitical catastrophe.” This was largely due to the fact that a political and scientific mechanism for preventing them did not exist, and, incidentally, has not been fully created even today. Moreover, it is very likely that such scientific schools were deliberately eliminated in the 80s and 90s so that the policy would not have a national scientific basis.

Currently, the situation in the field of analysis and strategic forecast in the international and military-political spheres looks even less satisfactory than before (when the ruling elite of the USSR often simply ignored the opinion of experts of the CPSU Central Committee, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the General Staff and part of the RAS staff) due to the general degradation of scientific schools and declining research levels. At the same time, some experts for some reason state that “Over twenty years of practical implementation in our country of the American theory of ensuring national security in Russian Federation a fairly extensive network of forces and means was created analytical support decision-making bodies government controlled in the field of national security (Fig. 8). As evidence, they cite a classical scheme, which in reality has little content and, in my opinion, is of the most general, poorly developed and interconnected, unsystematic and extremely ineffective nature. This, of course, inevitably affects the quality of forecasts, planning and execution. decisions made. In the very general view this system is as follows.

Responsible editor: T. V. Kashirina, D. A. Sidorov

The collection was compiled based on the results of the international scientific and practical conference of young scientists “The role of international organizations in modern world”, held at the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on February 16, 2019. The conference was organized by the Department of International Relations of the Diplomatic Academy, the official partner of the event was the Center for International Promotion Foundation, assistance in holding the conference was provided by the Public Diplomacy Support Fund named after. A.M. Gorchakov" and TD "Biblio Globus". The conference was attended by undergraduate and graduate students, graduate students and teachers from Russian and foreign higher educational institutions.

The authors' attention is focused on the analysis of modern trends and current problems in the development of international relations and international law. The authors examine in detail issues of cooperation within various international organizations and analyze the relations between leading players in the global political arena. The materials are presented in the author's edition and are intended for use in educational process in training specialists in the field of international relations and international law.

Book chapters

Panchenko P. N. In the book: Modern Russian criminal legislation: state, trends and development prospects, taking into account the requirements of dynamism, continuity and increased economic efficiency (to the 15th anniversary of the adoption of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation in 1996). Materials of the All-Russian scientific and practical conference (Nizhny Novgorod, October 4, 2011). N. Novgorod: Nizhny Novgorod branch of the National Research University Higher School of Economics, 2012. P. 258-269.

The significance of the Constitution of the Russian Federation and generally recognized principles and norms of international law in the development of Russian criminal legislation is analyzed, and prospects for the further development of this legislation and the practice of its application are shown.

Varfolomeev A.A. , Alyonkin S., Zubkov A. Drug control. 2012. No. 2. P. 27-32.

From the standpoint of international law, the article substantiates the thesis that drug production in Afghanistan should be considered a threat to international peace and safety. The authors come to the conclusion that it is advisable for the UN Security Council to qualify the situation in this way, and accordingly, turn to the instruments of international legal counteraction provided for in Art. VII of the UN Charter.

Butorina O. V., Kondratyeva N. B. In the book: European integration: textbook. M.: Business literature, 2011. Ch. 11. pp. 186-202.

The main issues addressed are:

1) EU budget: origin and content

2) Annual and multi-year financial plans

3) Problems of EU fiscal policy

4) Off-budget financial instruments

Denchev K., Zlatev V. Sofia: Agroengineering, 2000.

For almost a hundred years now, the “oil and gas factor” has been one of the main elements influencing international relations. Of fundamental importance is the fact that we are talking about the interconnectedness of international relations with the problem of energy security. The enormous importance of energy resources in world politics is aggravating both hidden and open confrontation between leading powers for control over regions that are either rich in hydrocarbons or located at the intersection of transport routes.

Suzdaltsev A.I. In the book: Economic modernization and globalization: In 3 books. Book 3.. Book. 3M.: Publishing House State University-Higher School of Economics, 2009. pp. 355-361.

The problem of developing the main criteria for modern Russian foreign policy on post-Soviet space associated with several external factors, playing a serious role in the region. These factors play a role in the development of long-term policy towards our only formal ally in the post-Soviet space - the Republic of Belarus, which is discussed in the article.

The textbook contains a description of the structure, tasks and mechanisms of work of the most significant international economic organizations; the results of their activities are shown; an analysis of problems and prospects for their development is given; changes in the formation of Russia's policy in relations with these organizations are reflected. A characteristic of the emerging system of global economic regulation is proposed. For students studying world economy and international economic relations. It is of interest to general international specialists, as well as anyone interested in issues of international settlement of global systems.

The forecast study, covering the period up to 2035, characterizes the fundamental trends that will shape the shape of the world in 20 years. The objective of the forecast is to identify challenges and opportunities awaiting the world that can be used in Russia’s interests to ensure its role as an active participant in developing the rules of the future world order.

A broad analysis of global development trends in the areas of ideas and ideology, politics, innovation, economics, social sphere, international security, the problems of globalization and regionalism are considered. The final section of the book is devoted to strategic recommendations for Russia.

For employees of government and management bodies, scientific, expert and business communities. It will be useful for international affairs students.

Number of pages - 352 pages

The reviewed work of Professor A.A. Sergunin of St. Petersburg State University is devoted to the current theoretical and in practical terms problem - Russian-European cooperation in the field of international security, which received special development after the signing of the so-called road maps for the common spaces of the Russian Federation and the EU (May 2005).

Analysis modern society, permeated by media, is conducted from the perspective of an ethnomethodological approach and represents an attempt to answer the cardinal question: what are the observed orderings of events broadcast by mass intermediaries. The study of rituals proceeds in two main directions: firstly, in the organizational and production system of media, focused on constant reproduction, which is based on the transmission model and the information/non-information distinction and, secondly, in the analysis of the perception of these messages by the audience, which is the implementation of a ritual or expressive model, the result of which is a shared experience. This means the ritual nature of modern media.

Humanity is experiencing a change in cultural and historical eras, which is associated with the transformation of network media into the leading means of communication. The consequence of the “digital split” is changes in social divisions: along with the traditional “haves and have-nots”, the confrontation “online (connected) versus offline (unconnected)” arises. Under these conditions, traditional intergenerational differences lose their significance, and the decisive factor is belonging to one or another information culture, on the basis of which media generations are formed. The work analyzes the diverse consequences of networking: cognitive, arising from the use of “smart” things with a user-friendly interface, psychological, giving rise to networked individualism and the increasing privatization of communication, social, embodying the “paradox of the empty public sphere.” Role shown computer games as “substitutes” for traditional socialization and education, the vicissitudes of knowledge losing its meaning are considered. In conditions of excess information, the scarcest human resource today is human attention. Therefore, new principles of doing business can be defined as attention management.

In this scientific work The results obtained during the implementation of project No. 10-01-0009 “Media rituals”, implemented within the framework of the HSE Research Foundation Program in 2010-2012, were used.

International situation of modern Russia (90s)

The collapse of the USSR changed Russia's position in the international arena. First of all, it was necessary to achieve recognition of Russia as the legal successor of the former Soviet Union at the UN. Almost all states recognized Russia. Including the recognition of the sovereignty of Russia, the transfer of rights and responsibilities to it former USSR in 1993-1994 declared the countries of the European Community (EC). Partnership and cooperation agreements were concluded between EU states and the Russian Federation.

The Russian government joined the Partnership for Peace program proposed by NATO, subsequently agreeing with NATO to conclude a separate agreement.

At the same time, Russia could not remain indifferent to the attempts of Eastern European countries to join NATO. Moreover, the NATO leadership published a document formulating the conditions for the expansion of this bloc. Any country wishing to join NATO must be prepared to deploy tactical weapons on its territory. nuclear weapons. It became obvious that the only power in the world that lays claim to global intervention in the affairs of other countries is the United States.

In 1996, Russia joined the Council of Europe (created in 1949, uniting 39 European states), whose competence included issues of culture, human rights, protection environment. However, during the events in Chechnya, Russia began to be subjected to discriminatory criticism in the Council of Europe, which raised the question of the appropriateness of its participation in this organization.

The dynamism of international events required constant maneuvering from Russian diplomacy. Russia has become a participant in regular annual meetings of the G7 (after Russia joined the G8) - the leaders of the leading developed countries of the world, where the most important political and economic issues are discussed. In general, ties with France, Great Britain, Italy and especially Germany (after the withdrawal of Russian troops in 1994 from the territory of the former GDR) developed positively.

Entering into partnerships with the USA and countries Western Europe occurred in parallel with Russia’s turn to “face” the East. Russia is a major power and the center of Eurasia. Naturally, its geopolitical strategy should be based on equal treatment of countries of both the West and the East. The policy of “Eurocentrism,” pursued during the years of “perestroika” under Gorbachev’s slogan “Enter the European House,” was perceived with caution by the leaders of eastern countries and caused bewilderment among the population of the Asian regions of Russia. Therefore, mutual visits of the heads of state of Russia and China (treaties and agreements of 1997-2001), strengthening relations with India (treaty of 2001) became a serious contribution to improving the international climate, to the development of the concept of a multipolar world, as opposed to US claims to establish a “new world order."

A very important issue in relations between Russia and non-CIS countries, and primarily the United States, is the role of nuclear weapons in maintaining peace and security. Although Russia's economic status has fallen, in terms of nuclear weapons it still retains the position of the USSR as a superpower. Political leaders of modern Russia were accepted on equal terms “ Big Eight", NATO. In this regard, the ratification in 2000 of the Third State Duma The Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START-2) concluded in 1992 between Russia and the United States raised questions among civilian and military experts who believed that this was a unilateral concession in favor of the United States. Because by 2003, the most formidable ground-based intercontinental ballistic missiles, the SS-18, were subject to elimination from the Russian defensive arsenal (they are based in almost invulnerable silos and carry combat duty in the version there are 10 independently targetable multiple warheads). Russia's possession of these weapons forces the other side to comply with agreements on nuclear stockpile reductions and missile defense.

In 2002, in connection with the US withdrawal from the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense Systems, the Russian side announced the termination of its obligations under the START-2 Treaty.

Foreign economic relations developed, trade between Russia and foreign countries. Our country supplies oil, gas and Natural resources in exchange for food and consumer goods. At the same time, states in the Middle East, Latin America, and Southeast Asia are showing interest in Russia’s participation in the construction of hydroelectric power stations, metallurgical enterprises, and agricultural facilities.

Relations with the CIS countries occupy an important place in the foreign policy activities of the Government of the Russian Federation. In January 1993, the Commonwealth Charter was adopted. At first, the central place in relations between the countries was occupied by negotiations on issues related to the division of property of the former USSR. Borders were established with those countries that introduced national currencies. Agreements were signed that determined the conditions for the transportation of Russian goods through the territory of the CIS countries to foreign countries.

The collapse of the USSR destroyed traditional economic ties with former republics. Trade with the CIS countries is developing, but has a number of problems. Perhaps the most pressing one is this: Russia continues to supply the former republics with fuel and energy resources, primarily oil and gas, for which the Commonwealth states cannot pay. Their financial debt in billions of dollars is growing.

The Russian leadership seeks to maintain integration ties between the former republics within the CIS. On his initiative, the Interstate Committee of the Commonwealth Countries was created with its headquarters in Moscow. Between seven states (Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan) an agreement was concluded on collective security(May 15, 1992). Russia, in fact, has become the only state that actually carries out peacekeeping tasks in the “hot spots” of the CIS (Nagorno-Karabakh, Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Tajikistan).

Interstate relations between Russia and some former republics of the USSR were not easy. Conflicts with the governments of the Baltic states are caused by discrimination against the Russian population living there. In relations with Ukraine, there is the problem of Crimea, which, together with the Russian city of Sevastopol, was “gifted” to Ukraine by Khrushchev’s voluntaristic decision.

The closest, fraternal ties are developing between Russia and Belarus (treaties of 1997, 2001). Integration relations are developing between them, leading to the formation of a single union state.

It is now clear that Russia can play a more significant role in strengthening economic, political, and cultural ties between the CIS states if it achieves success in its domestic policy, revival National economy, the rise of culture and science. And Russia’s authority in the world as a whole can be ensured by the stable development of its economy and the stability of the internal political situation.

From a chain of political upheavals in Latin America to the endless political crisis in Britain. From a series of armed attacks on tankers in the Persian Gulf to sharp fluctuations in US-China relations.

Against this complex background of chronic instability and volatility in the international situation, Russian foreign policy stood out especially clearly. Even the most irreconcilable critics of Moscow are forced to admit that in the past year, the Russian line in international affairs has been characterized by continuity and consistency. Russia does not look like a convenient partner to everyone on the world stage, but it cannot be blamed for being an unreliable and unpredictable partner. This undeniable advantage over some other great powers earns the respect not only of our friends and allies, but also of our adversaries and adversaries.

Apparently, the coming 2020 will be characterized by a further decline in the stability of the world system. I would, of course, like to be wrong, but the energy of the collapse of the old system of international relations has clearly not yet been completely exhausted. It is unlikely that it will be possible to stop the chain reaction of decay so quickly - this is not a task for a year or two, but for a long historical perspective. And the task is not for one or a group of the world’s leading countries, but for the entire international community as a whole, which, for a variety of reasons, is not yet ready to take it seriously.

Under these conditions, a natural temptation may arise to limit Russia’s participation in international affairs as much as possible, to isolate itself from the unpredictable and dangerous outside world, and to focus on solving internal problems. It is understandable that we do not want to “import instability”, to become unwitting hostages of those negative processes and trends in world politics that we are unable to manage and which no one is able to control. The public’s request for the country’s leadership to focus on our internal problems, which, unfortunately, we still have in abundance, is also understandable.

But the strategy of self-isolation, even temporary and partial, is dangerous in at least two respects. First, consistent self-isolation is virtually impossible in today's interdependent world, with rare exceptions such as North Korea. And for Russia, deeply integrated into global political, economic and social processes, any attempts at self-isolation will inevitably mean abandoning many of the most important gains of our foreign policy over the past 30 years. And, moreover, they will significantly slow down the solution of those internal tasks on which it is proposed to focus.

Russia does not look like a convenient partner to everyone on the world stage, but it cannot be blamed for being an unreliable and unpredictable partner.

Secondly, the strategy of self-isolation will actually also mean Russia’s withdrawal from active participation in the creation of a new system of international relations, in the construction of a new world order. And the creation of this new world order is inevitable in any case - the main questions are only in the timing and the price that humanity will have to pay for this world order. When the era of instability is left behind and global controllability is restored in one way or another, we will have to play by the rules developed by someone else and reflecting the interests not of Russia, but of other participants in world politics.

Therefore, Russian foreign policy in the coming year, it seems, should not be limited to solving primarily current, operational tasks in various regions of the world, although the importance of these tasks cannot be overestimated. But no less important is the development of new principles, models and mechanisms international cooperation for the future. Figuratively speaking, if today it is too early to start building the building of a new world order, then select individual “bricks” and even entire building blocks for this future building it is possible and necessary today. In this complex work, Russian foreign policy has something to rely on.

For example, in Syria, our country has accumulated unique experience in multilateral diplomacy, which makes it possible to bring together the positions of seemingly the most irreconcilable opponents and achieve a sustainable reduction in the intensity of military confrontation. Russia has managed to achieve in Syria what many not so long ago considered essentially unattainable. Obviously, in the coming year it is worth trying to extend this practice to the Middle East region as a whole, consistently developing and specifying what is undoubtedly in demand in the Middle East Russian concept regional system of collective security.

In Asia, Russia and its partners were able to take serious steps towards building a fundamentally new democratic and open system international institutions. Among recent achievements, it is enough to mention the expansion of the SCO, the promotion of the BRICS+ concept, the activation of the trilateral RIC format (Russia, India, China), impressive progress towards connecting the development of the EAEU and the Chinese “One Belt, One Road” project. Apparently, filling new institutional forms with specific content is especially important here. Russia, hosting the BRICS and SCO summits on its territory in 2020, could confirm its leading role in expanding the “project portfolio” of these organizations.

Russian-Chinese relations are confidently becoming an influential factor in the entire system of international relations. Further increasing the level of coordination between Russia and China in the international arena, including in the field of security, will continue to strengthen their authority and influence in world affairs.

In the European direction, although the outgoing 2019 did not become a turning point for the better for Moscow, it nevertheless brought certain positive results. Russia returned to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. It was possible to achieve common approaches between Russia and the West to resolve the political crisis in Moldova. After a long break, the mechanism of the “Normandy Four” summits on the settlement in Donbass began to work. There has been progress in trilateral negotiations with Ukraine and the European Union on energy issues.

Europe is entering a period of deep rethinking of its regional integration model. And it’s not just about the UK’s upcoming exit from European Union. On the agenda are pressing issues of socio-economic development, regionalization, security problems, etc. Against this background, a serious political dialogue on the future of relations between Russia and Europe in all strategic areas of our relations is becoming more than in demand. And such a dialogue must begin without delay.

In the United States it is already in full swing election campaign 2020 is not the best best time to try to begin to mend our bilateral relations. But we cannot agree with those who believe that Moscow should take a pause in these relations, awaiting the results of the presidential elections and the US exit from the deep political crisis that split American society three years ago. History shows that waiting for a “favorable moment” can last forever, and there will always be plenty of good reasons to extend the pause again and again. If contacts with the US executive branch are objectively difficult today, then we need to increase our activity along other lines, including on the second track of our relations.

In relations with Africa, 2019 was a breakthrough year - the Sochi Russia-Africa summit not only demonstrated the existence of mutual interest in developing cooperation, but also revealed the potential of such cooperation. Now the main thing is that the received impulse does not go into the sand, and therefore 2020 in this sense should be a year of practical steps.

These and many other problems will face foreign policy Russia in 2020. Our country has already demonstrated the skills of an effective crisis manager, capable of coping with the most serious current challenges to regional and global security. Russia has the opportunity, in addition to these skills, to also demonstrate the abilities of an experienced design engineer who is ready, together with his partners, to design individual components and entire units of a complex and as yet unformed mechanism of the new world order.

2020 will be held under the banner of the 75th anniversary of Victory in the Great Patriotic War and World War II. Looking back, it is impossible not to note that already in 1945, far from us, the victorious powers, despite deep differences on the most fundamental issues of world development, were able to agree not only on general rules games on the world stage, but also about the creation of an entire system of international institutions that guarantee the preservation of global and regional stability. This system, with all its shortcomings and imperfections, has served humanity for many decades.

Today, the international community faces challenges comparable in scale to those of the middle of the last century. I would like to hope that modern politicians, like their great predecessors, are aware of their historical responsibility and demonstrate statesmanship in the interests of resolving pressing problems of our time.

Political and socio-economic situation in Russia at the present stage.

FIRST FEATURE consists of radical changes in the world and a number of influential states that have caused instability in international relations at the global, regional and subregional levels.

Firstly, this instability was a consequence of the destruction of the previous world order system created after World War 2, when the confrontation between the two giants the USA and the USSR was in fact the main axis around which all international life revolved.

Secondly, instability was the result of the incompleteness of the process, the formation of new states and subjects of international law in the place previously occupied by the countries of the world socialist system and, above all, by the Soviet Union.

Thirdly, radical changes in the world have given a powerful impetus to various forms of competition for the “privatization” of the results of these changes in their favor. The strongest and most stable states tried to take advantage of the difficult situation within the newly independent states to consolidate their own influence and build international relations exclusively in their interests.

SECOND FEATURE is to expand the conflict-generating basis at the global, regional and local levels in various spheres of life of the world community. The ideas of universal peace and prosperity proclaimed by the new political thinking turned out to be a utopia against the backdrop of a series of wars and armed conflicts.

The situation is complicated by the fact that all of the above not only did not resolve the old ones, but also caused new contradictions that expanded the conflict-forming basis.

The international community turned out to be unprepared and unable to extinguish old and prevent new conflicts in different parts of the planet and individual regions.

THIRD FEATURE is a growing trend international situation. It is clearly manifested in the preservation and active use of military force in the foreign policy of states.

Firstly, the existence and improvement of the military organization of the states of the world indicates that in solving new international problems the governments of these countries do not intend to give up the possibilities of the old military-force method of solving them.

Secondly, the militarization of foreign policy is clearly manifested in the desire to use any occasion to demonstrate and test forceful methods in practice.

Thirdly, the militaristic character is manifested in the desire of states, under the guise of outwardly fair and even peaceful tasks, to solve military-strategic problems.

In particular, under the guise of peacekeeping, not only military skills are improved, but also military-strategic objectives are achieved that were previously achieved through classical military means.

Example: The war between the USA and NATO in the Balkans. Under the guise of peacekeeping, they are today solving those tasks that yesterday they were scheduled exclusively for wartime and for conducting military operations with the alleged enemy. In this regard, it must be remembered that everything is subject to the laws of dialectics, including militarism. It is developing and traditionally “buries itself” deeper and deeper into the “peacekeeping camouflage”.

Fourthly, militaristic policy is manifested in the desire to maintain military-political superiority by increasing one’s strength or inflicting direct damage military force probable enemy.

Example: this is clearly manifested in the policy of the United States and other states in relation to Russia. On the one hand, they strive to consolidate and maintain their power superiority, and on the other hand, to weaken Russia’s military power as much as possible.

Today, the main thing for Russia’s opponents is that Russia cannot fight in new conditions and is not ready for the wars of the 21st century.

The fourth feature is the sharp strengthening of the role of the military-industrial complex in international life and the foreign policy of a number of states.

Thus, the instability of the international situation, its increasing militarization, which is clearly manifested in the preservation and improvement of instruments of war, the increase in the number of armed conflicts and wars, as well as the increasing role of the military-industrial complex in the foreign policy of a number of states, raises the question of Russia’s military security.