Cold War” - the folding of the bipolar world West-East. Formation of the bipolar world Bipolar world

The modern world is in from a monopolar system, established after the defeat of the USSR in the Cold War, to a bipolar system. It has become quite real thanks to the constant increase in influence Russian Federation in the world.

Description and features

The bipolar international system is a variant of dividing our entire world into two huge ones that seriously differ from each other in terms of their economic, ideological and cultural factors. From the point of view of the development of civilization, this is a much more profitable option, in which the leader of each "pole" is obliged to create favorable conditions in his zone of influence for states and ordinary people. Simply put, this is the standard version of competition in the market. The more enterprises compete with each other, the higher the product quality, lower cost, more promotions, bonuses, and so on.

The history of polarity before the formation of the USSR

Until the US entered the world stage and the formation of the USSR, our planet practically did not know what a bipolar system was. Due to the weak development of technology and continuous wars, there was such a situation that in each individual region there were several powers at once that could compete with each other in all respects. For example, in Europe these could include Germany, England, France and Spain. Of these, Turkey and Sweden can be noted (which was far from last in Europe). And the same can be said about any part of the world. There was only one thing in common: no one could claim world domination, although England, with her huge fleet, made every possible effort for this. But everything changed with the rise of two superpowers, the USA and the USSR.

Bipolar world until the end of the Cold War

World War II was the main cause of bipolarity. On the one hand - the Soviet Union, which suffered huge losses, but managed to restore industry and economy in the shortest possible time, owning most of the world and an incredible amount of resources. On the other hand, the United States, which throughout the war successfully traded with both sides and actively developed its own state. Moreover, when the result of the confrontation became obvious, they quickly got their bearings and even managed to fight a little with their landing units. The rest of the countries suffered such serious losses that all their efforts were directed to recovery, and not to world domination. As a result, two huge powers began to "butt" with each other, not listening too much to the opinions of others. And so it continued until the late 80s, early 90s, when the USSR lost in the Cold War, which was the beginning of the collapse of the bipolar system.

Monopolar world

From then until about 2014, the United States dominated the world. They intervened in all conflicts and took everything they wanted (land, resources, people, technology, and more). No one could really oppose the relics of this country, because in addition to really strong army she also had a serious informational support, capable of convincing even that black is white. As a result, the current tension in the world, the development of drug trafficking, the formation of numerous terrorist groups, and so on.

Current situation

The second stage of the formation of bipolar began around 2014 and continues to this day. The Russian Federation is still far enough away from the moment when they will begin to reckon with it in the same way as with the United States, but all the actions taken now are confidently leading precisely to such an outcome. In addition, China is quite active, but, unlike the United States or the Russian Federation, China has never had world domination as its main goal. The population of this country is large enough and constantly increasing, so that in the end it will still become the leading power in the world.

Features of monopolarity

Monopolarity, unlike the bipolar system of the world, does not imply the need to take into account the opinions of other countries. She only has one option further development: the unification of all states under one flag, the creation of a certain global structure, and in fact - a single country on the entire planet. Any other actions aimed primarily at increasing the power of their country (in our case, the United States) gradually lead to the fact that monopolarity ceases to attract people and they are looking for any alternative.

With proper use of their own influence, it would be possible to change the situation in a different direction and create allied countries instead of satellite countries. It would be much more profitable, but it would not give the increase in power that the United States has shown all this time. At this stage, it is too late to try to do something, but the United States will hold on to the elusive title of world master to the last.

Possible future

The current development of human civilization can only lead to three main options. Perhaps it will be a global conflict between several groups, well described in Orwell's book "1984". It will be needed simply to unite citizens in the image of an evil enemy. At the same time, all contacts between countries will be disrupted, and eventually, as natural resources are depleted, the conflict will either enter a decisive phase with the use of weapons of mass destruction, or will gradually fade away simply due to a lack of the most necessary to continue the war.

The second development option is a gradual decrease in the influence of countries on each other and can relatively both become the beginning of a long peaceful era, and lead to the closure of borders and a complete break in all contacts with neighbors. The option is almost unrealistic, which is even difficult to imagine in the realities of the modern world.

The last option, which the formation of the current bipolar system of relations can lead to, is the formation of a single state after the defeat of one of the conflicting superpowers. In the most incredible case, the opponents can agree, and jointly, having influenced other states, form a government common to all, within which countries will exist more like some kind of corporation. There are many other versions of what all this could lead to, but they are either too fantastic or require some very global upheavals that are now difficult to predict. An example is contact with an alien race, diseases that destroy more than half of the world, a global nuclear war, the discovery of new energy sources, and so on.

The rate of development of civilization after the formation of the monopolar world has slowed down significantly. Numerous theoretical studies were curtailed, which did not provide benefits in the near future, the space program was practically closed, the growth of industry stopped, and grandiose construction projects disappeared.

Humanity tends to constantly look for the enemy. If it doesn't really exist, it needs to be created. This is the basis of the bipolar system. international relations. It's not good, but it's not bad either. Just such a fact forces our race to develop not the most effective way. The problem would be solved by a common enemy for the whole species, such as the same "evil aliens", but so far there are no such in the near future, as well as other potential contenders for a similar role. So, humanity can only look for enemies in its ranks, preferably among other countries.

An important role in monopolar and bipolar systems is played by the presence of nuclear weapons in a fairly large number of countries. The very fact of mutual destruction makes even the hottest heads think and try to find a way out of the crisis by other, non-military methods. If this factor disappears for some reason, another global military conflict and redistribution of spheres of influence is very likely, similar to the one that occurred in the First and Second World Wars, although it is believed that such remnants of the past in the modern world are impossible.

Output

Both a monopolar and a bipolar system are not the final stage in the development of relations between countries, but it is precisely the two poles of power that can give the necessary impetus, because within the framework of the confrontation there is a need to do more and better than the opponent, which gives a serious impetus to science, economics, industry and others. areas of activity. The main thing is that the conflict should remain in a passive phase, since hostilities between superpowers can most likely lead to the complete destruction of humanity.

After the Second World War, an international order emerged that was distinguished by two essential features.

First, it is the already mentioned rather clear division of the world into two socio-political systems that were in a state of permanent "cold war" with each other, mutual threats and an arms race. The split of the world was reflected in the constant strengthening of the military power of the two superpowers - the USA and the USSR, it was institutionalized in two opposing military-political (NATO and Warsaw Pact) and political-economic (BEC and CMEA) alliances and passed not only in the "center", but in the "periphery" of the international system.

Secondly, this is the formation of the United Nations and its specialized agencies and more and more persistent attempts to regulate international relations and improve international law. The formation of the UN responded to the objective need to create a controlled international order and became the beginning of the formation of the international community as the subject of its management. At the same time, due to the limitations of its powers, the UN could not fulfill the role assigned to it as an instrument for maintaining peace and security, international stability and cooperation between peoples. As a result, the established international order manifested itself in its main dimensions as contradictory and unstable, causing more and more justified concern of world public opinion.

Based on S. Hoffmann's analysis, let's consider the main dimensions of the post-war international order.

Thus, the horizontal dimension of the post-war international order is characterized by the following features.

1. Decentralization (but not reduction) of violence. Stability at the central and global levels, supported by the mutual intimidation of the superpowers, did not exclude instability at the regional and subregional levels (regional conflicts, local wars between "third countries", wars with the open participation of one of the superpowers with more or less indirect support of the other of them, the opposite side, etc.).

2. Fragmentation of the global international system and regional subsystems, at the level of which the way out of conflicts each time depends much more on the balance of power in the region and purely internal factors relating to the participants in the conflicts than on the strategic nuclear balance.

3. The impossibility of direct military clashes between the superpowers. However, their place was taken by "crises", the cause of which is either the actions of one of them in the region, considered as a zone of its vital interests (the Caribbean crisis of 1962), or regional wars between "third countries" in regions considered as strategically important by both superpowers (Middle East crisis of 1973).

4. The possibility of negotiations between the superpowers and the military blocs headed by them in order to overcome the existing situation, which appeared as a result of stability at the strategic level, the common interest of the international community in eliminating the threat of a destructive nuclear conflict and a ruinous arms race. At the same time, these negotiations, in the conditions of the existing international order, could only lead to limited results.

5. The desire of each of the superpowers for unilateral advantages on the periphery of the global balance with simultaneous mutual agreement to maintain the division of the world into "spheres of influence" of each of them.

As for the vertical dimension of the international order, despite the huge gap that existed between the power of the superpowers and the rest of the world, their pressure on "third countries" had limits, and the global hierarchy did not become larger than before. First, the possibility of counter-pressure on the superpower from its militarily weaker "client" that existed in any bipolar system has always been preserved. Secondly, there was a collapse of colonial empires and new states emerged, whose sovereignty and rights are protected by the UN and regional organizations such as the Arab League, OAU, ASEAN, etc. liberal-democratic values ​​based on the condemnation of violence, especially in relation to underdeveloped states, a sense of post-imperial guilt (the famous “Vietnam syndrome” in the USA), etc. Fourthly, the “excessive” pressure of one of the superpowers on the “third countries”, interference in their affairs created the threat of increased opposition from the other superpower and negative consequences as a result of the confrontation between the two blocs. Finally, fifthly, the above fragmentation of the international system left the possibility of certain states (their regimes) claiming the role of regional quasi-superpowers with relatively wide freedom of maneuver (for example, the regime of Indonesia during the reign of Sukarno, the regimes of Syria and Israel in the Middle East , South Africa - in southern Africa, etc.).

The functional dimension of the post-war international order is characterized primarily by the promotion of the activities of states and governments in the international arena of economic events. The basis for this was the deep economic and social changes in the world and the widespread desire of people for the growth of material well-being, for conditions worthy of the 20th century for human existence. The scientific and technological revolution made the activity on the world stage as equal international actors of non-governmental transnational organizations and associations a distinctive feature of the described period. Finally, due to a number of objective reasons (not the last place among them is the desire of people to improve their standard of living and the promotion of economic goals in the international strategic and diplomatic efforts of states, the achievement of which cannot be ensured by autarky), -but the interdependence of different parts of the world is increasing.

However, at the level of the ideological dimension of the international order of the Cold War period, this interdependence is not adequately reflected. The opposition of "socialist values ​​and ideals" to "capitalist", on the one hand, the foundations and way of life of the "free world" of the "evil empire", on the other hand, reached the state of psychological war between the two social political systems, between the USSR and the USA And although by using force at the regional and subregional levels, limiting the capabilities of "medium" and "small * states, the superpowers managed to maintain global security and thereby control the international order that developed after the Second World War , the changes taking place in the sphere of international relations made it more and more obvious that by the 80s it had become a brake on social development, a dangerous obstacle in its path.

The arms race caused by the confrontation between the two systems has become a heavy burden for mankind. So, in the mid-80s, about 6% of the world's gross product went into service. Military programs entailed huge consumption of fuel, energy, and rare raw materials. The implementation of these programs has suspended or slowed down the use of many scientific discoveries and the latest technologies for non-military needs (7). According to the data of the Stockholm International Peace Institute (SIPRI), in the mid-80s, more than half of the scientists and technical intelligentsia of the planet worked on the creation of means and methods of destruction, and not the creation of material values. Military spending was estimated at $1,000 billion a year, or over $2 million per minute (8). At the same time, about 80 million people in the world lived in absolute poverty, and out of 500 million hungry people, 50 million (half of whom were children) died every year from exhaustion (see: ibid., pp. 79-80).

If for the world economy the exorbitant burden of military spending caused stagnation and economic imbalance, then its consequences for the "third world" were even more severe. Thus, for every one-unit increase in the US interest rate caused by the arms race, it added $2 billion to the debt of developing countries. One of the most dangerous consequences and aspects of the problem has been the growth of military spending in the Third World countries, which are experiencing an acute shortage of funds for medical care and food supply for the population. Having reached an annual amount of 140 billion dollars by 1980, these expenditures tripled in real prices between 1962-1971 and 1972-1981. In many developing countries, up to 45% of the national budget was allocated for military purposes (see: ibid.). The growing burden of military spending became unbearable for the USSR, too, playing an almost decisive role in the collapse of its economy.

In general, a fundamentally new situation has been created in the history of mankind, when the experience accumulated before in finding the optimal ways of social development is no longer enough, when there is an urgent need for non-trivial approaches that break with the usual, but no longer correspond to reality stereotypes. The unprecedented challenges faced by humanity have called for changes in international relations to match their scale. Of paramount importance for the destinies of civilization was the widespread awareness of the fact already noted by some scientists that the modern world is an indivisible integrity, a single interdependent system. The question of war and peace has acquired a new meaning - it has come to be understood by everyone involved in the adoption of political decisions that in nuclear war there can be no winners and losers, and that war can no longer be regarded as a continuation of politics, because the possibility of using nuclear weapons makes the death of human civilization quite probable.

Unipolar world- a way of organizing the power of the whole Earth in one hand. Most often, by these hands we mean a superpower. Such a system is extremely ambiguous, it has been argued for a long time. And it all started, of course, with the Cold War.

Bipolar and unipolar world

It was during the Cold War of the 20th century that there was talk of some kind of polarity. The world has been recognized bipolar. The world knew two states, and the rest of the world was the field of their game. And although many will disagree with me, most often referring to the relative strength of the EU, nevertheless, everyone recognizes that two forces, two centers of the world existed - the West and the East. An eternal struggle that has a much longer history than a century and a half. But it was after Churchill's famous speech that the struggle rose to a new level. bipolar world was born.

His position became precarious after the collapse of one of the giants. We talked about a unipolar world. And of course, only the United States could now claim the place of ruler. One of the political figures who put forward this theory was M. Thatcher, which in her book "History of State Administration" directly spoke about this. In defense of the theory of unipolarity, arguments were made about the need for a world arbiter, centralized power in the hands of a reasonable and democratic government. Also at that moment in history, when they started talking about a unipolar system, there was an important change in politics for the EU countries: the unification of Germany. In March 1990, a few months after the fall of the Berlin Wall, Thatcher urged France to join forces in the face of the "German threat" and also expressed her fear that a united Germany would try to become the most powerful country in Europe. It was in the face of strong German power that the rest of the world, especially Great Britain, needed a counterweight.

M. Thatcher

On the other side, in the East, unipolarity was treated with skepticism. This especially affected Russia. V. Putin reacted sharply negatively to this theory of "one owner", which was logical from the point of view of the losing country. However, more objective sources are against this theory. Their argument and motive is simple, strong and understandable - unlimited power over the world of one superpower will contribute to anti-democratization, suppression of the rights of other countries, lynching. This is familiar to the world long before the very word "unipolar" and the entire science of political science in the modern sense. The Roman Empire, the Mongol and the Spanish - the best monopolists in history could hardly boast of democracy. Some of them lasted longer, but still strove for discreteness, separation, disintegration. Entropy is their lot. Although the territory still cannot but surprise. It is enough to analyze the cards:

Roman Empire in A.D. 117 e.
Mongol Empire
Spanish Empire

In response, today the proponents of the unipolar strategy speak of the inevitability of uniting the world into a single network, about globalization and integration, about the growth of the population of the entire planet, about world problems. All this requires centralized power no longer at the level of only states. Throughout the 20th century, you have seen the cohesion and strengthening of the whole world, whether it be the Warsaw Pact, NATO or the G7, the CIS or the EU - the world has united like never before. But is an arbitrator necessary? Does this one speak for unipolarity?

Nevertheless, another block does not lag behind and offers its own versions of how to behave in the conditions modern realities. And one of the widespread theories says that it is worth ... returning to the bipolar system.

This point of view was defended by the American political scientist C. Waltz back in the 1970s. In his work “The Theory of International Politics” (1979), he saw the significance of bipolarity in that it minimizes uncertainty, because the number of participants in a confrontation in this model is sharply limited.

In the conditions of the modern mutually permeable world, the presence of many centers of power can lead to chaos: once there are many points, there are many interests; hence many collisions. The balance of forces, dynamic balance can only exist when there are two equal-sized bowls on the scales. And the guarantee of the planet's tranquility lies in the return to a bipolar world, where one side balances the other.

V. B. Tikhomirov even believes that “at the global level, the world social system has always been and remains bipolar in the nervous approximation, which is manifested in its invariant structure.” According to the scientist, unipolarity generally contradicts the laws of nature. The world is simply doomed to be bipolar, because the poles "should complement each other within the framework of the unity of opposites."

But many see the second pole not in Russia, but in other, more actively developing countries, such as China. Its prospects have been talked about for a long time, and the modern news report begins to resemble the predictions of Tikhomirov and Waltz.

Multipolar world

The strategy is less popular, and more difficult to implement in practice due to the fact that it requires the uniform development of many countries, the alignment of the economic level.

Here are the main arguments of the adherents of a multipolar world

As in all areas, competition is still better than monopoly.
After all, competition forces the leading members of the community to increase their quality, etc., and the participants occupying the second and third echelons, nevertheless, not only follow in the wake of one of the leaders, but also defend their interests.
In a monopoly, on the contrary, there is one flagship, and all the rest either with it, or must be destroyed.

This idea opposes the bipolarity of the world, arguing that the world does not need another cold war, which leads to the accumulation of weapons, in particular, nuclear weapons. This idea seems to be closest to the ideas of humanism and democracy. And yet, utopian. Meanwhile, the meaning of the famous song is now perceived in a completely different way:

We're all living in America..

Sources of used photos:

• http://www.the-dialogue.com
• http://oboi-na-stol.com

On April 25, 1945, the United Nations was created at a conference in San Francisco with the participation of 50 states. On September 2, 1945, the Allies together achieved the surrender of Japan, after which II world war could be considered finished. During the struggle with Japan, on August 6 and 9, 1945, the United States subjected the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to atomic bombing, although there was no military necessity for that.

But by the end of the war, a confrontation between the USSR and the allies in the anti-Hitler coalition emerged. The main issue was the post-war reorganization of the world and spheres of influence in it. Everyone bent their line, tension and misunderstanding grew, an arms race began. The allies even planned a war against the USSR, but were afraid of its combat power. The final turning point was the speech of the British Prime Minister Churchill, delivered in the USA, in the city of Fulton in March 1946. Churchill called on the entire English-speaking world to unite against the USSR. American President Truman supported him. A confrontation began, which the American journalist Lippman in 1947 called the "cold war."

The USSR and the USA sought to actively spread their influence on Europe. In Europe, which was grateful to the USSR for its liberation, the ideas of communism spread. The United States urgently accepts the Marshall Plan - a plan to help post-war Europe to abandon communism. The Marshall Plan led to the division of the world into two opposing parts - East and West. In September 1949, Germany is divided into the western part - the Federal Republic of Germany and the eastern part - the GDR.

The USSR put pressure on a number of countries, and they refused US assistance. The USSR takes Hungary, Romania, Albania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Poland, and Czechoslovakia under its wing. He provides these countries with enormous material support and brings communist governments to power. The world is divided into two camps - socialist(led by the USSR) and capitalist(led by the US).

The division of the world was enshrined in international organizations. In 1949, the CMEA (Council for Mutual Economic Assistance) of the socialist countries was created. In April 1949, a military-political bloc of Western countries, NATO, was created. In 1955, the OVD (Warsaw Pact Organization) was created - a military bloc of socialist countries.

First international crises

In 1948, after the decision of the United States to create a separate West German state - the FRG, the Berlin Crisis erupted. The USSR blocked West Berlin (the zone of occupation of the allies), but the West created an "air bridge" through which it was supplied with everything it needed for almost a year. This crisis brought the world to the brink of a new war and led to the final division of Germany.

After the defeat of Japan, its former colony of Korea was divided along the 38th parallel into two zones of occupation, Soviet and American. In the north, the communist government of Kim Il Sung was established, and in the south, the pro-American government of dictator Lee Syng-min. These governments start a war to spread their influence over all of Korea. The USA, the USSR and China were drawn into the hostilities. The Americans wanted to throw atomic bomb to China, but did not dare. In 1953 an armistice was signed. The country was divided, and the arms race accelerated in the world.

Topic: USSR in the post-war years 1945-1953.

1. Rebuilding the country

2. Strengthening Stalin's personal power

3. Struggle for power after Stalin's death

Restoration of the country

Material losses in the war were very high. The USSR lost a third of its national wealth. The five-year plan of 1946-1950 became a plan for the restoration and development of the national economy. The problem of technical re-equipment of industry was solved by exporting equipment from German and Japanese enterprises. Hydroelectric power stations, state district power plants were built, road transport construction was developed. Successes were in ferrous metallurgy, oil and gas production, mechanical engineering. There were not enough workers at the enterprises and they were recruited in the village. The need to strengthen the defense capacity has again put the military-industrial complex at the forefront. The locomotive that pulled the entire economy was the creation of a nuclear complex. It was high technology and a lot of money was invested here. In 1949, the USSR received nuclear weapons.

Agriculture after the war was in a deep crisis. Due to the lack of food in the country, the peasants were obliged to hand over more and more grain. Sometimes even seed bread had to be given away. The sown areas were reduced, there were not enough workers. The technology was worn out. The discontent of the peasants grew.

Most of the population was in distress. Introduced a card supply system. In 1947, they carried out a 10:1 money exchange reform, after which the amount of money in the population decreased. Soon the government lowered the prices of consumer products several times and abolished the rationing system. The situation of the townspeople has improved somewhat.

BIPOLAR WORLD

“The United States will have to speak out against world public opinion, which has changed significantly since the Cold War.

Report "Contours of the World Future", December 2004

The number of engineering graduates in the United States peaked in 1985 and has declined by 20 percent since then. The share of students wishing to specialize in engineering disciplines put the country in second to last place among the developed countries of the world. Number of graduate engineers graduating educational institutions China, exceeds their number in the United States three times. In addition, the widespread concern about the safety of life in the United States, which arose as a result of the September 11 terrorist attack, makes it difficult to attract foreign students to American universities, and in some cases also causes foreign specialists to be denied permission to work in American companies. In this situation, universities in other countries, where there are no such difficulties in obtaining a visa, are trying to use the opportunities that have opened up and lure students away.

The volume of private investment in research and development (accounting for 60% of all investments allocated in the US for this purpose), although it increased this year, has been at a low level for the previous three years. Moreover, leading multinational corporations are creating their own research centers outside the United States.

historical experience. It seems that in the future, states and citizens will face dangers primarily internal nature: ethnic wars, terrorism, drugs, gangsterism are problems for the police rather than for the army. This is a new formulation of the question for states that have been in the conditions of the Cold War for many years, with its pronounced external threat. Solve strangers problems, intervening in the conflicts of a neighboring country, no matter how friendly it may be, will be increasingly uncomfortable, for Americans in the first place. This will push the implementation of multipolarity. What does the experience of modern times tell us?

1. For the first time becoming multipolar (precisely a system), the design of international relations in the eighteenth century eventually evolved into a bipolar rivalry between Britain and France. For several years, Napoleon managed to enlist the support of Russia, conquer continental Europe, which practically neutralized Britain, which also lost its North American colonies. The desire for absolute domination threw the French emperor to

Moscow, but the conquest Total peace turned out to be impossible. French hegemony was broken at Borodino, Leipzig and Waterloo.

2. Between Waterloo and Sadovaya (where Prussia defeated Austria and became the leading German state), Russia and Britain maintained a bipolar system for half a century, broken by the weakening of Russia (the Crimean War) and the triumph of nationalism in Italy and Germany. The First Industrial Revolution strengthened the German states, France and Italy, c. as a result, the multipolar system triumphed again. Germany, having crushed Austria and France in 1866-1870, after Bismarck began to violate the multipolar system with its claim to continental (read global) primacy, which caused the formation of an opposing Entente cordiale.

3. With tremendous effort, the outside world between 1914 and 1945 rejected the German encroachment. At the same time, he did away with dynastic diplomacy. The American-Soviet duo very quickly emerged from the anti-Hitler coalition, and the system again became bipolar for forty years (America enlisted the support of Western Europe, and the USSR entered into an alliance with China). With the estrangement of Moscow and Beijing, internal strife in the USSR, bipolarity again sunk into history and the American leader stood out.

American political scientists do not hide the fact that “the United States would, of course, prefer to be in a unipolar system, where they would have the position of hegemon ... On the other hand, the major powers would prefer a multipolar system in which they could pursue their interests on their own and collectively while avoiding the restrictions, coercion and pressure of a single superpower. They feel threatened by America's pursuit of global hegemony."

Some stable features have been identified. First, this or that system is preserved for about one or two generations. Second, the end of the diplomatic-social construct is conflict. Thirdly, the movement goes from chaos to the formation of a multipolar system in which two leaders stand out (bipolar system), one of which, after a (long) rivalry, becomes the hegemon. Rivals unite, oppose the willfulness of the leader - common interests and common fears bring together - and the world again plunges into a kind of chaos.

So, the following cycle is usual: from the free play of independent centers, where the variability and flexibility of the diplomacy of several centers dominate, a tendency of greater rigidity matures, usually formed bipolar world. Bipolarity usually leads to prolonged conflict (cold war). Then one of the centers wins and a leader emerges, whose self-will inevitably causes opposition and the unification of potential opponents. The monopolar world inevitably splits, and the whole process ascends into a new circle. Such is world history.

Occupying influential positions in the globalizing world, using American dissatisfaction with the difficulties of imperial omnipotence, a number of sovereign countries will get a real chance to break out of the orbit of the only superpower. The first step in the transformation of a unipolar system will be bipolar world. He will come in the course of confrontation, the development of a position in the course of a dispute about regional hegemony between the EU and Russia, between China, India and Japan.

Coalition confrontation. Exist various options the rise of new centers. Their forces at the stage of the formation of a new world center will most likely not be enough to challenge America, for a real confrontation with the world hegemon. The first step towards reforming the international system, a transitional phase on the path of interstate bipolarity, could be the rapprochement of a number of American competitors with each other. Historical experience speaks of the relative ease of rapprochement between countries if a parallelism of their interests is found. Separate block building is possible both in Western Europe and East Asia. Among the predicted anti-hegemonic blocs stand out five options.

First is based on the reality of the alienation of a number of Western European countries that can find a friendly force in Russia. For example, the leader of modern sociology, I. Wallerstein, predicts the "liberation" of Western Europe from obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty. In parallel with the Russian-Chinese cooling, China will come to the American-Japanese camp, and Russia - to the Western European one. In the formed two great coalitions - the American-Japanese-Chinese alliance against the European-Russian alliance. Between 2000 and 2025, both blocs will expand. Then conflicting interests will not allow to avoid a collision and there will be a threat of a long-term world war.

Second option proceeds from the civilizational strength of the Atlantic alliance, which will be opposed with much greater naturalness by the main Asian states - China and Japan. (In a purely economic sense, these two countries are natural partners - one has technology, know-how, the other has natural resources and a huge market. One has an aging sophisticated population, the other has an energetic youth, one has a specifically Asian democratic experience, the other has a one-party system .) Both countries can provide emergency assistance to each other, overcoming the previous bitter historical experience, the difference in ideology, China's self-assertion, its insensitivity to Japanese concerns, the fact that Japan is bound by treaties with the United States.

Two great Asian countries can forget mutual accusations. And at the same time remember the old grievances from the Americans and Europeans, if supporters of the "return" of Taiwan and the "return" of Okinawa prevail inside both countries. Continuation of the stormy economic growth The PRC will help restore Japan's furious economic expansion, interrupted for a decade. China has already become Japan's second trading partner after the US. These circumstances immediately aroused American concern. An alliance between Japan and China could create a partnership capable of claiming dominance at any level.

Third option- The rapprochement between Russia and China is not yet considered realistic in the West. Both countries greatly appreciate Western investment, they do not complement each other so harmoniously, modernizing the economy in pursuit of Western economic indicators. And yet, the rapprochement of the two giants of Eurasia has features of reality. According to an Australian researcher, “the most likely heir to the modern unipolar structure will be a new bipolar a balance that will restore the old alliance of Moscow and Beijing in 1950 on the basis of a strengthened Russia and an economically and militarily developed China, including some forces from the Muslim world - for example, Iran. In traditional terms status quo alliance" (USA, Europe and Japan) will have much greater economic and military power, than revisionist alliance. But the tension will be reminiscent of 1949-1962, the height of the Cold War.”

The successes of the West, the lagging behind of its "persecutors", the irritation of Russia and China over the partiality of the United States and their allies in the issue of national self-determination of the peoples living in Russia and China - can sharply stimulate yesterday's still incredible rapprochement between Beijing and Moscow. At the very least, the arming of the Chinese army by Russia against the background of the tightening of Chinese policy on the future of Taiwan creates a plausible scenario of voluntary and involuntary rapprochement between the two largest (in terms of population and territory) countries of the world. Over the past years, Russians and Chinese have made the axial idea of ​​their attitude to foreign policy cooperation "for the glory of multipolarity".

In December 1996, the two countries proclaimed in a joint communiqué: "The partnership of equal rights and trust between Russia and China aims at strategic cooperation in the 21st century."

Russia sold to China the strategically important guidance and control systems of its SS-18 and SS-19 systems for the Chinese DF-31 and DF-41 complexes. Modern Russian submarines sold to China have arrived at Chinese ports. Factories producing parts for Topol-M (SS-27) mobile intercontinental ballistic missiles have been built in China.

Russia is helping China create a new generation of ballistic missile submarines and submarines themselves with virtually silent engines, roughly equal in class American systems"Victor-Sh", which in the United States will be taken into service only in 2007. Russian factories provided China with parts of mobile SS-24 and SS-25. China received technology from the Russian Federation for the creation of mirrated solid-fuel missiles, which greatly increased the accuracy of Chinese strategic weapons. There are plans for Russia to build up to twenty nuclear reactors. According to the American specialist S. Blank, "Moscow sees China's military growth and intends to assist it." In particular, the question of studying Chinese nuclear physicists in Moscow has already been resolved.

“As a result, China and Russia,” writes the American G. Binnendijk, “broke closer in the sphere of security, despite the presence of a number of factors preventing rapprochement. Globalization seems to be drawing both countries to the West, but contradictions with the West prevent this trend. The strengthened Chinese-Russian ties are based on mutual distrust towards the West, growing common interests, interest in the arms trade, on the resolution of former border and other contradictions ... The ties between China and Russia with pariah states are also obvious. It cannot but be a matter of concern that nations at odds with the West are forming cooperative relationships that lead to dangerous bipolarity.”

At the end of 1998, the prime minister of the Russian government, Yevgeny Primakov, put forward a project for a tripartite alliance Russia-China-India, which can be regarded as the apotheosis of plans to unite the main non-Western forces. In 2000, Russian President V. Putin put forward similar plans during his visit to Beijing. In 2005, Uzbekistan was admitted to the SCO (Shanghai Organization of Six). In 2006, Kyrgyzstan made it clear to Washington that the presence of American troops on its territory was undesirable. The potential of this scheme in the future will depend on many components.

Fourth option is perhaps the biggest nightmare for American futurists - the alliance of Western Europe with China, uniting the world's greatest common market with the most numerous nation on Earth.

Defense spending by individual European countries, including Britain, France and Germany, will decline over the next fifteen years, especially when compared to China and other rising powers. But cumulatively, the EU's defense spending will exceed that of other countries except the United States and possibly China. Members of the European Union have faced great difficulties in their history in coordinating and optimizing defense spending aimed at increasing prosperity, strengthening security and increasing the role of the EU in the international arena. The question of whether a single army will be created within the EU remains open - partly because its creation could lead to duplication of functions with NATO forces.

Although the armed forces of a united Europe are unlikely to be capable of deployed hostilities outside the region, the power of the EU can be used - through its commitment to the idea of ​​multilateralism - to develop a model of global and regional governance that can be attractive to rising powers (such as China and India) , especially if they opt for the "Western" alternative to avoid unilateral dependence on the United States. For example, an alliance between the European Union and China, although it remains unlikely, is no longer perceived as unthinkable.

The aging of the population and the shrinking workforce in the vast majority of European countries will have a major impact on the fate of the continent, presenting it with serious, but apparently solvable, economic and political problems. The average European fertility rate is now about 1.4, which is below the population replacement level, which is 2.1 children per woman. Over the next fifteen years, the economies of Western Europe will need several million workers in order to fill the gaps created by the retirement of their veteran laborers. Europe faces a dilemma: either it will be able to adapt its workforce to the current situation - that is, reform social security, education and tax systems and integrate a growing immigrant population (especially those from Muslim countries), or fall into prolonged economic stagnation that could reduce all the gains made in the process of building a more united Europe.

This was what Presidents Washington and Jefferson feared most of all in their time: a Eurasian colossus, combining its economic and military power with the vast human masses of Asia - the union of Middle Europe and the Middle Kingdom, the union of Germany-led Europe and China-led Asia. The main global task of the United States should be to prevent such an alliance. If, however, one prepares for the worst and agrees in principle with the inevitable alienation of the outside world, then an alliance with Japan, Russia and India should be prepared as a counterbalance. Such a situation, such a variant of a "hard" future should be avoided by mobilizing pro-American forces in Europe.

Fifth option does not look realistic yet, but is discussed in Western scientific literature. We are talking about the rapprochement of Western Europe and Japan. In principle, this is a very logical topic: those who are nearby are blocked against the strongest. (In addition, a number of researchers foresee "the coming confrontation between China and Japan.")

We note the annual meetings of the leaders of the EU and Japan at highest level, meetings at various forums, at regular sessions of the UN, the World Trade Organization, etc. In recent years, “the European Union has expanded the geographical scope of bilateral dialogue… These meetings influence the perception of the EU and Japan of each other. The tangibility of this rapprochement is linked to the economic and security threats posed by China and the Korean Peninsula.” It is important to note the adoption in 1994 by the European Union of the "new Asian strategy". Brussels' perception of Japan as a kind of bridge between Europe and Asia became clear. On the Japanese side, a certain rapprochement is associated with the favorable response of Prime Minister Kaifu to the appeal of Western Europeans to provide assistance. Eastern Europe without waiting for an American reaction. The cooperation of the two sides in the WTO "facilitates the mutual support of the EU and Japan in relation to US demands."

In fact, the European Union and Japan are laying the foundation for joint action in the 21st century. For all Japan's unwillingness to risk its special relationship with the United States if the latter takes a more "self-centered" course, Tokyo may intensify its orientation towards the Western European center. “While,” writes the English researcher J. Gilson, “the United States continues to reduce its interference in European and Asian affairs; new problems of "less strategic" importance are gaining more and more space in the international arena. Right now, Japan and the EU are becoming key players in the field of international economic and political activity, and they are already developing a partnership in solving global issues.”

But building coalitions is not an easy and often long-term process. Sovereign states entering into alliances tend to show independence rather than discipline. Along with coalition bloc building, the privileged position of the United States will be threatened by an anti-American evolution. individual large states. They are few, but they are sovereign and potentially powerful.

Not North-South and not East-West will be the political dichotomy of the future. The two real contenders for the role of a US-independent pole are united Europe and China.“Although it is very difficult to predict the conditions that will prevail in Europe or China in 25 years,” concludes historian P. Kennedy, “both of these regions have the potential to become equal to - or even surpass the United States, - at least in economic power."

This text is an introductory piece. From the book I Deny You, Yotenheim! the author Pavlov Alexey

Chapter 26 Restrained impatience, ready to turn into unbridled joy - this is what the prisoner feels, who was ordered with things, if there is at least a theoretical possibility of release. The peculiarity of the state lies in the fact that your position in prison can,

From the book In the Environment of Moderation and Accuracy author

Chapter IV For the first time - OZ, 1876, No. 9 (issued September 20), pp. 255-292, under the title "Excursions into the field of moderation and accuracy", with serial number "IV". Signature: N. Shchedrin. The typesetting manuscript of the original version of the essay has been preserved. The essay was written in the summer of 1875 in

From the book Unfinished author Saltykov-Shchedrin Mikhail Evgrafovich

Chapter V For the first time - OZ, 1876, No. 10 (issued October 21), pp. 567-597, under the title "Excursions into the field of moderation and accuracy", with serial number "V". Signature: N. Shchedrin. Manuscripts and proofreadings have not been preserved. In the first separate edition (1878), the text of the chapter differs from

From the book Satire from Iskra. Results author Saltykov-Shchedrin Mikhail Evgrafovich

Chapter VI First published by M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. In the environment of moderation and accuracy, St. Petersburg. 1878, pp. 173–176. Manuscripts and proofreadings have not been preserved. Written specifically for a separate

From the book Hell's Game. The Secret History of the Caribbean Crisis 1958-1964 author Fursenko Alexander Alexandrovich

CHAPTER V First edition For the first publication of the initial editions of the fifth chapter of the "Results" and the establishment of their sequence, see above, pp. 657-658. The first edition is a draft autograph with numerous inserts and a few deletions. On the fields

From the book Sunset of Geyropa and Russia author Razumkov Maxim

CHAPTER I In the uniform practice of all countries and peoples there is a very wise rule: when new form, then there is a period during which everyone is free to wear the old uniform. This is obviously done on the basis that the new form almost always

From the book All the Kremlin Army. Short story modern Russia author Zygar Mikhail Viktorovich

CHAPTER II Imagine that in the very midst of the sowings with which modern life is so abundant, at the moment when you, in the child of progress, count least of all on the possibility of returning those orders, which, for all reasons, must finally sink into eternity,

From the author's book

CHAPTER III If there is a way to check the degree of development of society, or at least its ability to develop, then, of course, this way consists in clarifying the ideals by which society is guided at a given historical moment. What does society like?

From the author's book

CHAPTER IV Therefore, if it is not possible to formulate what we want, what we love, what we strive for, and if, moreover (as the revision of the Perm province proved), despite the benefits of the reforms, a person, leaving home with a firm intention to literally fulfill everything

From the author's book

CHAPTER V Among the words that do not remember the relationship, which our street jargon is so rich in and which most people are most willing to abuse, the word “anarchy” undoubtedly belongs. Worth only

From the author's book

CHAPTER V First edition Among the words that do not remember the relationship, which are most often subjected to all sorts of arbitrary interpretations, undoubtedly belongs the word "anarchy." Heroes of the street resort to this expression in all sorts of cases. Does the person touch the issues

From the author's book

CHAPTER V First Edition For the first publication of the initial editions of the fifth chapter of the "Results" and the establishment of their sequence, see above, pp. 657-658. The first edition is a draft autograph with numerous inserts and several deletions. On the fields

From the author's book

CHAPTER 8 EXECUTIVE Khrushchev's decision to hastily deliver nuclear weapons to Cuba after Kennedy's decisive move in September accelerated the completion of the deployment of R-12 missiles to Cuba by at least two weeks. Rockets R-12, or SS-4, according to NATO designation,

From the author's book

Chapter 6 "Main chapter". Substitution On the pages of the book, we discussed the factors that allow the servants of the Queen of Tolerance to consistently and inexorably go towards achieving their own goals. Let's briefly recall them and preliminarily summarize. Reduce the birth rate

From the author's book

Chapter 4 In which the head of the Kremlin administration Dmitry Medvedev created a new Russian estate Dmitry Medvedev gives a very unusual impression for a politician - he seems a good man. It shows that he is not very confident in himself - especially this

From the author's book

Chapter 5 In which Viktor Medvedchuk, head of the presidential administration of Ukraine, remained the last Ukrainian whom Putin trusts At the beginning of the 2000s, Medvedchuk looked like a man from outer space against the backdrop of Ukrainian politicians. An absolute European, completely different from