The place of the Russian Federation in the modern world. About the place of Russia in the modern world What place does the Russian Federation occupy in the modern world

In order to assess the real situation modern Russia in system international relations, its foreign policy potential should be determined. Foreign policy potential is understood as a set of factors that, to one degree or another, contribute to achieving goals foreign policy states. The essence of foreign policy potential is expressed by such concepts of the concept of political realism as “state strength” or “national strength”. The founder of this direction, G. Morgenthau, defined this concept based on eight criteria.
Today, these criteria are partly outdated; they do not take into account scientific, technological and educational potentials as independent positions and components of national strength, the role of which at the present stage is often higher than, say, such a factor as the presence of certain types of natural resources. But in general, G. Morgenthau’s formula provides a basis for assessing the real foreign policy potential of any country.
Applying this formula to the Russian Federation, one can notice that the role of our country in the international arena has not remained the same as it was in the recent past for the USSR. This is due not only to the fact that Russia has lost part of its existing Soviet Union potential, but also because the political and economic crisis in the country negatively affects the moral climate in society. Russia, where political civil strife does not stop, where a significant part of the population is in under stress, cannot, of course, play the previous role of a “superpower”. At the same time, the preservation of part of the Soviet military power (primarily in the area strategic weapons) and the presence of the richest natural resources gives reason to believe that if the economic, moral and political crisis is overcome, Russia is capable of becoming one of the important centers of power in world politics.
To determine the foreign policy doctrine and foreign policy strategy of the Russian Federation, the formulation of its national-state interests is of paramount importance. Moreover, in the recent past the problem of national interests was virtually completely ignored. The Gorbachev-Shevardnadze foreign policy line was built on the basis of “new political thinking,” one of the principles of which was the priority of “universal human interests.” At one time, “new political thinking” played a positive role, as it helped throw off the ideological shackles from the foreign policy of the Soviet Union, contributed to the improvement of the international situation in the second half of the 80s and, ultimately, the end of “ cold war" But the theorists and practitioners of “new thinking” avoided the question of how much their actions corresponded to the national-state interests of the USSR, and this resulted in erroneous or hasty decisions, the negative consequences of which are still felt today.

Early Russian diplomacy inherited from the “perestroika” leadership an underestimation of such a factor in shaping foreign policy as national-state interests. And this manifested itself during the first years of the still short history of Russia’s existence as an independent subject of international relations. It is not surprising that its foreign policy and the activities of the Russian Foreign Ministry were subjected to sharp criticism from various sides in this regard. Although, Along with constructive criticism, there were also speculations and incompetent judgments, especially on the part of the so-called national patriots.
In order to objectively solve the problem of the national-state interests of Russia, it is necessary first of all to understand the content of this category.
And the traditional interpretation of state interest is broad and is associated mainly with the achievement of such goals as the existence of the nation as a free and independent state, ensuring economic growth and national welfare, preventing military threat or infringement of sovereignty, maintaining allies, achieving an advantageous position in the international arena, etc. State interest finds concrete expression in setting the goals and objectives of the country's foreign policy.
The geopolitical factor is of great importance in the formation of national-state interests. Geopolitics is based on objective realities.
First of all this - geographical factor: length of borders, location and spatial extent of one state relative to another, availability of access to the sea, population, terrain, belonging of the state to one or another part of the world, island position of the state, availability of natural resources, etc.
Of the many factors influencing human activity, geographic is the least susceptible to change. It serves as the basis for the continuity of state policy while its spatial geographical position remains unchanged.
So, we can conclude that the main national-state interest and the main foreign policy task of Russia for the foreseeable period, apparently, is the preservation of its traditional global geopolitical function as a unifying and stabilizing force in the center of Eurasia.
The ability to realize this task depends, firstly, on how much it will be allowed material resources, and, secondly, on the political conditions within Russia - the political will of the leadership, the stability of social and interethnic relations.
More specifically, the tasks of Russian foreign policy, ensuring its national-state interests, are as follows: self-assertion as the main successor to the rights and responsibilities of the USSR, its successor in world affairs and maintaining the status of a great power; preservation of the territorial integrity of the Russian Federation based on taking into account the interests of all peoples and regions, peace, democracy and realism;
ensuring external conditions conducive to the country’s free inclusion in the world economy and politics;
protection of the economic, social and humanitarian rights of its citizens, as well as the Russian diaspora in all territories former USSR; maintaining and strengthening defense potential to the extent necessary to protect the country's national security. All these tasks dictate the need to build relations with individual countries differently.

For the former Soviet Union, relations with the United States of America have traditionally been a priority.
This was quite understandable, since we were talking about the relationship between the two main “poles” of a bipolar world. During the Cold War, for all their confrontation, Soviet-American relations were still relations between approximately equal partners.
Both states had comparable military power, a large number of allies, both played main role in the opposing Warsaw Pact and NATO. During the period of “perestroika,” bilateral Soviet-American relations continued to be relations between two superpowers, and the main issue of these relations was the issue of limiting and reducing the huge stockpiles of nuclear and conventional weapons accumulated in the previous decades. Due to inertia, a similar situation persisted until recently, but at this stage all possible milestones in the “disarmament race” had been achieved.
Now a new situation is emerging, the United States and the Russian Federation are no longer equal entities.
For the United States, the importance of relations with Russia will decrease compared to the “Soviet period,” and for Russia, the concerns of a superpower will be replaced by less global, but no less acute problems, related to the new geopolitical situation that emerged after the collapse of the USSR. Of course, cooperation with the United States is important and necessary, but for objective reasons it cannot be as comprehensive as the confrontation was. The coincidence of interests of Russia and the United States on a whole range of problems, including the fight against terrorism, does not mean that these interests will always be identical in everything.
In the near future, it is necessary to develop a new model of relations between these two countries, completely eliminating the previous confrontation, but at the same time based on principles that would allow Russia to maintain its foreign policy face and role in the international community.
No less important today for our country are relations with the developed countries of the European Union and with the united Germany. But it would be a mistake to believe that Russia in the foreseeable future will be able to join the processes of European integration to the same extent and in the same form as the small states of Central Europe, which are in the euphoria of the slogan “return to Europe.” Neither the European Union nor the Russian Federation are ready for such a turn of events.
It is worth highlighting the problem of relations between Russia and Japan. Today Japan claims to increase its role in world politics to a level corresponding to its current economic, scientific and technical potential. It is known how great the achievements of this country are in the economy over the past decades. For Russia, especially for its Far Eastern region, cooperation with Japan has great importance, but the problem of the so-called “northern territories” stands in his way. Today both countries are looking for ways out of this situation.

Until the middle of the 20th century and for almost three hundred years, Europe, and even more narrowly Western Europe, was considered the center of the civilized world. This Eurocentric model of the world was not only an illusion of Western ideologists, but also a reality at the beginning of the 20th century. Huge layers of ancient cultures of the East were forgotten, and most of Asia, Africa and Latin America was in colonial and semi-colonial dependence on several European empires. Russia was then seen as an outskirts, even a fringe of Europe; many Russian revolutionaries, not without reason, called Russia a European semi-colony.

It was the contradictions and rivalry of Western European countries in the division of the world that became the main cause of the First World War. But the war weakened the global influence of Europe itself and marked the beginning of the rapid rise of the United States in the West and the Soviet Union in the East.

The Second World War also began as a war for the redistribution of the world, and it was unleashed by Germany, Japan and Italy. This war ended in the defeat of the aggressor countries, and it destroyed the monopoly of Western European countries in world politics. The entire former world of colonies and semi-colonies also collapsed. A bipolar world emerged, led on one side by the United States and on the other by the Soviet Union. These two camps fought a cold war between themselves and competed for influence in the Third World, formed from former colonial countries. Western and Eastern Europe stood on opposite sides of the barricades in this struggle.

The end of the Cold War and the collapse of the USSR led to complex and major shifts in the centers of economic and political influence. This process of formation of a multipolar world has not yet been completed, but fortunately it is proceeding without a new world war, although not without military conflicts in different regions of the globe.

The United States remains today the largest country in the world in terms of political, economic influence and military power. But this leadership is not unconditional. The European Union is already a political and economic reality. The rapid growth of the authority of the new European currency, the attractiveness of European culture, as well as criticism by France and Germany of American policy in Iraq - all these are different signs and manifestations of the formation of a new united Europe, which seeks and wants to outline the boundaries of its interests. We see the beginning of the rise of both Latin America and India.

Turbulent and contradictory processes of development are taking place in the Muslim world of 1.5 billion. The Organization of the Islamic Conference includes more than forty countries with different cultures and languages: Indonesia, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey, Arab countries, Albania. There are radical movements and groups in the Muslim world that challenge the United States, the West in general, but also Russia.

In the East, Japan retains its role as one of the most powerful economic powers. But she lost the war Pacific Ocean and today it does not have political influence adequate to its economic and financial power even in the Far East. China is at the forefront of a new sphere of “co-prosperity” in East and Southeast Asia, which is quickly becoming the second most economically and politically influential country in the world.

It is not easy for all countries to determine their place and role in the new multipolar world order. Great Britain is no longer a metropolis in the largest empire. However, there is an almost symbolic British Commonwealth, which includes not only Australia and Canada, but several other countries. While remaining one of the leading members of the European Union, Great Britain continues to gravitate toward the United States in political and military relations and North America generally.

Great Britain remains one of the leading financial centers in the world, and more than seventy countries from all parts of the world store their gold reserves in the vaults of the British Bank. The pound sterling retains its importance as one of the world currencies, and the English language is confidently gaining the role of the main language in international and interethnic communication. The Spanish language and Spanish culture have considerable influence in Latin America, but in Brazil they speak Portuguese, not Spanish. Turkey is seeking to join the European Union, although it is one of the large Asian countries and considers itself part of the Muslim world, not the Christian one. Countries such as South Africa, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Taiwan, and Israel have their own geopolitical difficulties and difficulties with historical identification. Germany and Japan did not fully recover from the psychological problems of World War II. Many African countries have not yet entered the circle of civilized countries. Some Asian countries are also moving slowly in this direction.

What place should and can Russia occupy in the modern multipolar world with its vast territory, large natural resources, its complex history and considerable political authority? There are many people who would like to belittle Russia's role in modern world or, on the contrary, elevate it above other countries. Even Chaadaev, criticizing Russia for its backwardness and decline, regretted that it was not Russia, but Western Europe that was then the world leader. “Stretched between two great divisions of the world,” Chaadaev wrote, “between East and West, leaning with one elbow on China and the other on Germany, we would have to combine two great principles of spiritual nature - imagination and reason, and unite in our civilization, the history of the entire globe" 340.

In Soviet times, these claims about the special civilizing role of Russia not only increased, but, as it seemed to many, they found their real embodiment. Convictions in some special purpose for Russia persist today in the minds of many Russian politicians, ideologists, and cultural figures. These claims are unfounded. Yes, of course, the geographical location and size of Russia give our country considerable advantages. Russian culture is not only one of the great European cultures, it also continues in Asia. However, there is no reason to place it above other great cultures of the West or East.

There are no clear criteria or boundaries in the world for dividing or even defining different civilizations. Nevertheless, the arguments of those who consider Russian civilization one of components European civilization seem more convincing to most cultural historians.

However, to be a part or extension to the East of a great and complex European civilization in nature and composition does not at all mean to be part of Europe or even part of the West in general. There are many Russian politicians who almost deliberately try to downplay both Russia's current and future role in the world.

“The Russian Federation,” as stated by Doctor of Historical Sciences and one of the experts of the Yabloko party, Alexei Arbatov, “will not play any significant role in the 21st century. Russia must return to Europe as the integral part it was a thousand years ago. If Russia will be almost invisible among the world centers of power in twenty years, then on a European scale it may remain one of the largest countries, comparable in economic potential and political influence with Germany, France, Italy and Great Britain, and in terms of population, territory and natural resources. resources superior to them. Integration will transform these advantages from a matter of eternal European concern into a factor of even greater power, security and independence for Europe” 341.

There are other schemes in which both Western Europe and Russia, Japan, Israel, Australia, Canada and other “Western” countries are included in a certain zone of stability led by the United States of America. This is the "Pax Americana", or Western civilization, which must stand up to the rest of the unstable world. “Reasoning soberly and even cynically,” said Sergei Dubinin, the former chief banker of Russia, recently, “the Russian elite is simply obliged to achieve a real alliance with the West and become a full part of it. This is dictated by a simple sense of self-preservation. And this will not be our gift to Western politicians. We ourselves need this” 342.

“Russia does not even need integration, but unification with Europe, of which it was a part in the past. After this, the rivalry between Russia and the United States in the post-Soviet space will lose meaning. Why does Russia need to compete with America for influence in Central Asia, Ukraine, Georgia, and in the near future in Belarus? There is no need for any strategic partnership with Russia and China. He will build his own relations with the West, and Russia can only get in the way. Returning to Europe is the most important historical task for Russians in the 21st century.” These arguments belong to Alexander Rahr, director of programs for Russia and CIS countries in Germany 343.

But a thousand years ago Russia was a different country, and the world was different. Russia is today the natural leader in most of the post-Soviet space, and it would be a big new drama if Russia abandoned its role, its responsibilities, and its interests in Central Asia, the Transcaucasus, or Ukraine and Belarus. Russia continues and must remain an independent center of power and influence in the world, and its size, resources, its military power, as well as its historical and national consciousness, allow Russia to play this role with dignity. For all major countries of the world and for all other centers of power, Russia is obliged to remain a partner and mediator. However, Russia must maintain a certain “equidistance” from both new and old world leaders. It should not unite with any of the emerging centers of power and influence in the world against the other.

Cooperation with Russia is necessary and beneficial for Europe. It also remains important for the United States, for the countries of the Near and Middle East, for India, China and Japan. But this must be equal cooperation. Such cooperation is also necessary for Russia itself. Not everyone is ready, especially in Western countries, to see Russia as a major independent player in world politics. Russia seemed to many to be an already defeated superpower that could only act before the Western world as a client and supplicant. Some politicians dreamed not only of the collapse of the USSR, but also of the disintegration of the Russian Federation into several weaker associations. This, fortunately, did not happen.

Our task is to develop the space we have been given and improve the lives of our people. We should not impose our will and our rules on other countries. But we cannot sacrifice our interests.

We must learn to distinguish between the interests of the country and the people, on the one hand, and ambitions or claims to some special role in the world, on the other. Neither Russia nor the Russians as a nation have any special mission in the world or in history other than caring for their well-being and their security. Many peoples or countries have claimed to be “chosen by God.” This brought them nothing but troubles. We need to be more modest. Yes, of course, Russia is the largest country in the world by territory. But far from the most prosperous. There are several dozen indicators of state well-being. These are not only indicators of GDP per capita or labor productivity and competitiveness of manufactured goods. These are also indicators of ecology, life expectancy, health status, indicators of the population’s education, and even the IQ of youth or high school graduates. Guided by these indicators, groups of sociologists and economists at the UN have long been determining a certain composite index of well-being and, on this basis, compiling a list of approximately 200 countries that are members of the UN. Russia in this list is far from being in the top ten or even among the fifty most prosperous countries. Just five years ago, Russia occupied 57th place on this list, and in 2006 – 65th place. Russia is developing, but some countries - both large ones like Brazil and small ones like Panama - are developing faster than Russia. Russia is still ahead of the CIS countries in terms of quality and standard of living, including Belarus, Kazakhstan, and especially Ukraine. But it is inferior to Mexico and Poland. Of course, the development of Russia in all main directions is primarily a problem for its economic policy, for policies in the field of education and health care. But foreign policy is also one of the most important levers for the rise of Russia.

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

The first decade of the existence of modern Russia is associated to a greater extent with negative consequences - the most important economic ties with the countries of the former USSR were severed. The defense capability was significantly damaged, and there were practically no borders with the former republics. The unified military-industrial complex collapsed. The former influence on the countries of Central and Eastern Europe was lost. Former partners in CMEA and the Warsaw Pact linked their plans for the future with the European Union and NATO.

In the first years, the CIS countries deliberately distanced themselves from Russia, but a large number of social and economic problems that arose during the years of independence forced the countries to partially resume integration processes within the CIS. In 1992, a large number of documents were adopted regulating relations within the commonwealth, and an Agreement on collective security. However, the CIS to this day has not acquired the status of a deeply integrated union of states and today is rather a relic of the early 90s.

Despite the utopian visions of the rulers of that era, the former union republics did not begin to live with Russia in peace and harmony, nor did they begin to deepen economic ties. The policy of the West, which seemed to us an ally who gave us a new ideology, is still aimed at breaking traditional ties - not only economic and political, but also cultural. The West, which seemed to us a generous and selfless donor, an ideal role model in matters of social economic development, never stopped introducing aggressive rhetoric into the relationship between now former rivals. Thus, despite the sluggish resistance of our country, NATO expanded due to the entry of Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic into it.

In addition, NATO has come close to our borders due to countries that have joined and are planning to join NATO, such as the Baltic countries, Ukraine, and Georgia. To date, only one superpower has survived - the United States, and many begin to think that an era of unlimited American domination is coming. The United States undoubtedly has grounds to claim the role of a powerful center of power for the long term. They have accumulated impressive economic, military, scientific, technical, information and cultural potential, which is projected onto all major spheres of life in the modern world. At the same time, America has a growing desire to lead others.

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

And here it is worth returning to Russia, which, having gone through terrible crises, the collapse of the ruble and economic collapse, has nevertheless begun to partially restore its position. After 2000, against the backdrop of rising energy prices, the Russian economy experienced an upturn. Unnoticed by the West, which has been celebrating our victory over the USSR for the third decade, Russia began to strengthen its economy. Until 2008, the rate of economic growth only increased. Despite the fact that the rise was associated with an increase in energy exports (oil, gas), income allowed the state to develop other economic spheres, which had a positive effect on the market as a whole.

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

Modern Russia is essentially the only alternative to the West, which has reached a development impasse. Despite the short-term realities, several fundamental points can be identified that prevent Russia from being deprived of the rank of a “power”. Traditionally rich in resources Russia is a beneficial partner for Europe, which, having intellectual and technical superiorities, is drowning in social problems Oh. Despite the loss of sphere of influence at the end of the twentieth century, the second decade of the 21st century can be characterized as positive - the return is traditional Russian territories, diplomatic victories in Syria, conflict resolution in the territory of the former USSR, victory in the home Olympics and much more.

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

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

Modern Russia has learned to think in a new way - having joined the common world market, we will no longer be subject to the isolation that was possible under the USSR, because by cutting off the Russian market, Europe is depriving itself of the same amount of income. Influence in the 21st century is about managing interdependence and the task of modern Russia is to become the most profitable and promising trading partner on the continent. And if the United States cannot prevent this, then today we live in the most promising country.

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction

The development of the world community in the first years of the 21st century is marked by a growing contradiction between the objective trends of the new global peace and their political interpretation in favor of the right of the strongest powers to reorganize the world in accordance with their interests, ideas and values.

Modern Russia is looking for its place precisely in this contradictory world. This requires an adequate foreign policy, which, on the one hand, would assess the real capabilities of the country, and on the other, would strive to preserve the place historically allotted to it.

Therefore, the relevance of the chosen topic is beyond doubt, since Russia, like other subjects of modern world politics, experiences the contradictions of social development. It probably feels them to an even greater extent due to the incompleteness of state-building processes, the unresolved consequences of the systemic crisis, the uncertainty of national-state interests, the contradiction between the desire to quickly integrate into global community and persistent myths that it is a world power, the natural heir Russian Empire and the USSR.

Russian foreign policy will have to bring the country out of the state of being subject to the influence of contradictory trends of modern world development. This task is extremely difficult, since the effectiveness of foreign policy actions is directly related not only to geopolitics, but above all to the real capabilities of the country and the skillful use of its economic, military, and cultural potential.

In general, the events of the last decade have clearly proven that Russia’s active, independent role in the world and the strengthening of its international positions are objective factors for the stability of the world order and the successful solution of those problems that are common to all peoples and states.

1. Foreign policy and the role of Russia in the modern world

Russian foreign policy is going through a rather difficult stage today, when a revision (to a certain extent even radical) of the concepts that have guided the country until today is necessary.

The main reasons for this revision are determined by the following key factors:

EU enlargement occurred without realizing political and economic opportunities for Russia;

- the “new Europe 25” reduces to virtually nothing the possibility of effectively using bilateral relations as channels of pressure;

The EU has an agreed line of behavior and general rules games in relation to Russia, while we are not yet ready to fully recognize Brussels as the main partner for dialogue;

NATO expansion does not pose a military threat to Russia, but it breaks the old concept of security, primarily from the point of view that Russia could slow down or change this process;

A new wave of NATO expansion in 2006-2010. - this expansion is directly at the expense of the post-Soviet space (Ukraine, Georgia, etc.);
- NATO expansion in its previous format is significantly ahead of the process of internal transformation of the alliance;

The stage of its globalization begins (Afghanistan) and Russia’s influence on these processes is minimal (the current agreements with NATO are good as a form of trust, but not cooperation);

The US interest in Russia is of a purely applied nature (for example, the situation with Iraq) and the issue of strategic partnership has actually been removed from the agenda;

The CIS as a real organization ceases to exist, new forms (single economic space) are unlikely to be effective;

The crisis in relations with Ukraine is a blow to all previous concepts of cooperation and unification;

China is becoming an increasingly efficient state economically and a key geopolitical player, for which the role of Russia will also change in a few years (towards minimization);

The UN has failed to overcome the crisis of recent years, and Russia is also seriously to blame for this.

And yet Russia still remains in the “first league” of world powers (“major league” - the USA and China), which is still determined by the presence nuclear weapons, seats on the UN Security Council and geopolitical situation. The main task is not to slide lower. Russia still has several areas in which it can continue to be a fairly strong player (Transcaucasia (through support from Armenia), Central Asia (through Kazakhstan and stabilization of relations with Uzbekistan), North Korea, Iran, Kyoto Protocol), but in general the need in Russia becomes less every year (as an example - the Middle East process).

We are forced to “fit in” to most initiatives, since we have less and less strength for our own policies that others will respect. This is not a tragedy, but an objective reality, on the basis of which you need to think about practical steps and determine your “ceiling”. From the point of view of the state of our economy, with all the recent successes, we are in the “fourth” league.

The problem is that foreign policy today is as personalized as possible (“the state is me”) and, because of this, any lower-level assessments are simply not perceived by foreign partners as anything serious.

The role of the legislative branch in the field of foreign policy is increasingly reduced to the role of a “barking dog” that is simply not paid attention to. Foreign policy itself in many cases is replaced by a scheme of summits, between which normal working mechanisms do not work (for example, relations with the EU in the last two years).

What could be our priorities?

Carry out a “peaceful reconstruction” of the remaining post-Soviet space;

Ensure the stability of the integration process in relation to the EU;

Minimize the military-political consequences of NATO expansion (new members of the alliance must remain friends with Russia at least to a minimal extent);

Continue to integrate the Russian economy into the global one;

Do not lose influence within the UN during its transformation;

Change the outside world's opinion of Russia.

Thus, the choice of means is small, since no one will change the rules of the game for the sake of Russia (the EU is like clear example). The main means is political and psychological presence where still possible. In addition to this, we must finally abandon all concepts of building unrealistic alliances, and extract maximum benefit from existing bilateral and multilateral contacts.

2. Russian economy in the world economy

Russia positions itself as a global power that shares the market-democratic values of the West, but declares its right to have its own say in matters of building a new world architecture and its own zone of interests (within the borders of the CIS).

Russia is trying to compensate for economic and financial weakness by aggressively entering global and regional energy markets and by maintaining its image as the world's second nuclear missile power. The West no longer perceives Russia as a “stranger” in economics and politics, but it does not yet perceive it as “its own.”

In the Asia-Pacific region, Russia occupies a marginal position and has not yet taken real steps either in terms of strengthening its diplomatically active presence in the Asia-Pacific region, or in terms of taking into account the integration opportunities of Northeast Asia for the development of backward regions of “Asian Russia”. The Asia-Pacific region has a much less strategic role for Russia.

In Russian political circles, there was a widespread perception of China as a partner in countering NATO expansion and American missile defense plans. However, when these issues lost relevance, the prevailing perception of China as a source of demographic and military threat and as a partner of far from the first level of significance became dominant.

Today, Russia does not have the capabilities and ideological grounds to strengthen its international positions through global and regional opposition to the United States, but is not yet ready to consistently take the opposite course - strengthening its international positions through global and regional interaction with the United States. In the case of the first (or close to it) option for Russia’s further international positioning, Russia cannot count on China, which has definitely entered its own trajectory of relations with the United States, as a partner.

In the case of the second (or close to it) option, the chances of building new strategic partnerships in the Russia-China-US triangle increase. However, the threat of recreating an atmosphere of “competition” between Moscow and Beijing in this “triangle” is also increasing, which can (threat) complicate Russian-Chinese relations from time to time.

The economic component of national-state interests has always and everywhere appeared in the most obvious and obvious form. The desire to ensure normal conditions for reproduction, and then to strengthen economic power and prosperity, has been the mainspring in both the domestic and foreign policy of the state since its formation.

The principle of supporting and protecting domestic entrepreneurship does not at all mean a course towards isolation from the world economy or autarky. It only assumes a reasonable, gradual movement towards economic openness, which does not allow damage to the national and state interests of the country and provides for the reasonable use of protectionism. All countries that are today highly developed have gone through this.

The transition from the use of protectionist measures to the implementation of policies " open doors", and sometimes vice versa, is very indicative from the point of view of mobility, variability of national-state interests, their dependence on the level of economic development of the country and the balance of forces in world trade. Such turns are accompanied by corresponding theoretical justifications that precede changes in foreign economic policy or justify these changes post factum.

Attracting foreign capital in the form of direct private investment (as opposed to, for example, loans, which will have to be paid for, if not by us, then by children or grandchildren) meets the national and state interests of Russia. Of course, it must also meet the interests of investors.

Complexity current situation is that Russia is faced with a number of serious challenges affecting deep-seated national and state interests. The collapse of the Soviet Union had far from clear consequences for Russia. In many ways, her interests were dealt a serious and very painful blow. In addition to the change in the geopolitical situation, which was very unfavorable for the country, and the severance of economic ties, a decisive role in the collapse of the country’s economy was played by a sharp deterioration in its structure (an increase in the share of raw materials and extractive industries), the loss of a significant part of the seaports, fleet and reliable transport routes.

The weakening of the country and the lack of clearly defined strategic guidelines among its leadership gave rise to a powerful external pressure at her. There is nothing unexpected or unpredictable in such pressure. It is the logical result of strict adherence by political leaders of Western countries to their national and state interests aimed at protecting and supporting domestic business and financial structures.

All actions that involve maintaining export restrictions Russian goods(except for fuel and raw materials) and technologies easily fit into this simple and understandable logical system. As well as proposals developed by Western experts to curtail scientific research programs in Russia (under the slogan of their rationalization), including in the most promising areas.

The modern world in particular world economy with its strict and imperious laws, is very far from a naive idyll and altruism. And it must be considered as it is, without adding anything, but also without leaving anything unattended. And the sooner we realize it harsh realities, the sooner we learn to understand and skillfully defend our national-state interests, the closer the goal of the revival of Russia will be.

Finally, it is worth mentioning the challenge to national-state interests that arises, as it were, from within. We are talking about the predominance in many cases of group and egoistic (compared to general) interests: monopolistic groups and individual regions, trade and intermediary, and to some extent mafia structures, administrative apparatus, etc. And although such a process was largely provoked by mistakes and inconsistency of economic policy, it is completely unacceptable to justify, let alone downplay, its consequences.

Thus, here again it must be emphasized that it is possible to get rid of such a challenge only with reliable reliance on the national-state interests of the country. Only the implementation of such a course can ensure public consent, lay a reliable foundation for economic reform, and lead to success. This will be a path understandable to the people, corresponding to their hopes and aspirations.

3. Culture and sports and their importance in strengthening Russia’s role in the world

foreign policy russia world

Sport as an important social phenomenon permeates all levels of modern society, having a broad impact on the main spheres of society. It influences national relations, business life, social status, shapes fashion, ethical values, and people's way of life.

Sport is the main thing today social factor, capable of resisting the invasion of cheap culture and bad habits. This is the best “rattle” that can distract people from current social problems. This is, perhaps, the only “glue” that is capable of gluing the entire nation together, which neither religion, nor even more so politicians, can do.

Indeed, the phenomenon of sport has a powerful socializing force. Politicians have long considered sport as a national hobby that can unite society with a single national idea, fill it with a unique ideology and people’s desire for success and victory.
Sports in Russia are loved in all its diversity. And along with national species sports - small towns, northern all-around, tug-of-war - athletes of the few peoples of Russia take part in traditional territorial and sectoral competitions. At these competitions, as in big sports, there is an atmosphere of celebration and unity. And the lack of internationally recognized Olympic records is not a hindrance.

Traditionally, Olympic sports are considered elite sports, that is, those sports that are included in the program of the Olympic Games. There is increased interest in Olympic sports both from government officials and professional athletes, as well as from amateur athletes and fans.

But along with Olympic sports, Russians have always enjoyed the sympathy of automobile and motorcycle sports, billiards, beach volleyball, sports tourism, dance sports, roller sports, winter swimming and many other sports that accompany people’s leisure and active recreation. In addition, for Lately Russian citizens, traveling abroad, learned about the existence of sports previously unknown in our country: bowling, squash, diving, rafting, which have become popular among Russian holidaymakers.

Sambo, billiards, bandy, chess are sports that have also long been known in Russia. Karate, Aikido, Taekwondo are martial arts popular among Russian boys. Auto racing and parachuting is an “extreme” sport with a huge number of Russian fans. None of these sports are included in the program of the main competitions of our time - Olympic Games. But does it really matter whether a sport is Olympic or not?

Their common desire is the full development for the benefit of Russia of mass folk “sport for all”, its inclusion in the system of elite international sports competitions. There are all the prerequisites for this today.

The culture of Russia in modern culture is an actualistic and prognostic aspect of considering culture in general with an emphasis on its Russian component, on the role and place of Russia specifically in modern culture. Two lines of reasoning are acceptable: from world culture to Russian culture and vice versa; at the border-intersection we get a definite answer. Two most important features are characteristic of modern culture: the cultural expansion of the West - in a situation of extreme secularization and at the same time the universalization of its own culture and, on the other hand, the struggle for cultural autonomy and originality in non-Western civilizations in the face of “modernization” and “Westernization”.

Russian culture in modern times has experienced a harmful impact, revealing a significant desire to accept the standards of “Westernism” and “modernism,” which has already twice led to the collapse of the historically established statehood and to the historical gap between Orthodoxy and culture. It is precisely with her spirituality as the already recognized contribution of Russian culture to world culture, the legacy of Pushkin and Dostoevsky that she can help herself today, her people and the state, and the intense quest that Western European civilization is pursuing in its cultural introspection and self-knowledge.

The most important modern trend is the making of money by cultural organizations. In Russia, as throughout the world, there are cultural organizations that can make money. Moreover, in culture nothing can be free - everything has its price. It would be unfair, however, if the use of public funds (for example, museums) goes only to the institutions themselves and intermediaries. In this case, it is necessary to partially donate money to funds for the development of cross-systems of financing cultural activities.

A separate issue is the use of the potential of the non-profit sector. The state must create conditions for participation in the implementation of state and municipal cultural programs not only by state, but also by non-state, non-profit organizations. By creating organizations specializing in entrepreneurial activity in the non-profit cultural sector, rather than forcing each individual institution to do so, the state does not violate the unity of cultural policy. To change the existing situation in the cultural sphere, “it is advisable to provide government agencies management in the field of culture, broader rights of ownership of cultural objects, including the right to dispose of real estate and income from its operation. It is necessary to revise the rules for the commercial use of state-owned cultural property, primarily items from the state museum fund, to determine the conditions and procedure for allocating part of the income received to cultural needs!”

It is advisable to expand the practice of multi-establishment of cultural institutions by state and non-state bodies. This process should be encouraged in every possible way. When individual federal cultural organizations that are related to solving territorial problems are transferred into the ownership of the subjects of the federation, co-founding of bodies at different levels is possible.

Attracting additional funds to the cultural sector is associated with the strengthening of the role of private financing (patronage and sponsorship). It is necessary to actively encourage donors. Not only the provision of tax benefits can be used, but also other, non-standard measures, for example, permission to forgive debts to debtors under certain conditions for helping culture.

A number of problems in the development of the socio-cultural sphere depend on the implementation of appropriate tax policies in relation to cultural organizations. Unfortunately, today they are actively denied benefits; the reduction of benefits is justified by a lack of funds in the budget. First of all, non-governmental organizations in the cultural sector suffer. Many practitioners believe that the motivation here is quite simple: fear of deception and the reluctance of tax authorities to engage in the necessary control.

Thus, the cultural sector is today in a very difficult financial situation, having ceased to receive the necessary financial resources from the government, while the legal prerequisites for its stable functioning in an emerging economy are just being formed. The most important condition for the survival of cultural organizations is making money, which necessitates the need to rely on those forms of cultural activity that generate income. It is not surprising that much of the development here is not at all in civilized forms. However, the system of cultural organizations will simply be swept away if it does not make attempts to rely on real life, to new forms of activity, to those areas where dynamic cultural processes occur. There is a fundamental difference between “what is called resources for culture and culture as a resource.” Knowledge about culture must be transformed into applied knowledge: if the state must bear the costs of protecting treasures or monuments, then turning treasures into money is the task of people who actually master cultural processes. In their hands are technologies that can actually work in the future for the further development of culture.

4. History of Russia in world civilization

In general, Russia's status as a great power is inseparable from its responsibility (together with other great powers) for the fate of the world community. And this sets a certain logic for choosing priorities for economic and social policy, allocation of resources, including the corresponding military-political strategy.

Based on an understanding of both the experience of recent decades and more distant historical events, it can be argued that the world is supported by a system of peculiar counterweights that ensure a balance of power.

The disruption of the existing balance of power caused by the collapse of the Soviet Union is already having a significant impact. Negative consequences and is of grave concern, especially among European peoples. Others are beginning to understand this too. The dictates of one superpower can seriously destabilize the entire international situation. Restoring Russia's authority and influence as a great power is in the interests of the stability of the world community and also meets its own national-state interests, although it presupposes certain obligations.

Russia's fulfillment of its duty, conditioned by the country's geopolitical position, is its historical calling, its destiny. History has placed Russia in the position of a middle state, located between the West and the East, which has absorbed the features of their culture, value systems, and civilizational structure. In many ways it was, but to an even greater extent it can become a bridge connecting these two very different worlds, promoting their better mutual understanding and mutual spiritual and moral enrichment.

If, of course, we abandon primitive and at the same time very dangerous attempts to search for some ideal model of socio-political structure, culture and religion. If we proceed from the recognition of the pattern of diversity and equivalence of various models of socio-economic and spiritual development of countries and peoples belonging to one or another type of civilization.

The history of Russia and its geopolitical position have led to a rather peculiar combination of state and individual, collectivist and personal principles, economic rationalism and spirituality. Accumulating over centuries and transmitted through the channels of social memory, they are today integral, irremovable features of its socio-economic appearance, value system and motivation of behavior. Not taking this into account means trying to stop the inexorable movement of history. Such a policy is incompatible with genuine, deep national-state interests of Russia.

Russia's geopolitical position makes objectively necessary a multilateral orientation of its foreign policy and organic inclusion in all enclaves of the world economy. Any attempts to prioritize its relations with one country or group of countries are contrary to its national-state interests. Multilateral orientation is a strategic principle and it should not be violated for any opportunistic reasons or under the pressure of the moment.

Even raising the question of the priority of relations with a particular region, group of countries - be it the near abroad, former CMEA countries, Southeast Asia, the USA or China - seems incorrect. The question of geopolitical priorities is probably legitimate for many countries, but not for Russia as a great world power. It is on the basis of precisely this approach that one should build both a global strategy and daily foreign policy activities, determine the structure of the apparatus of the relevant departments, conduct Scientific research and personnel training.

It is very useful and instructive to trace, using the example of the history of the Russian state, how this calling was carried out, how in the most different conditions and under a variety of political regimes, the main direction of its foreign policy course could be traced. How, finally, despite growing resistance and bitter defeats, the country again and again taxied to its historical path. If someone doesn’t like to call it historical destiny, then let it be a calling, a destiny, a geopolitical logic or a pattern.

The role played by Russia has always caused concern and sometimes a sense of fear in the West. They were afraid of her. And this is not bragging. These are historical facts. We must honestly admit that representatives of our glorious Fatherland, unfortunately, gave many reasons for such judgments and fueled the desire to humiliate and weaken Russia.

Of course, fundamental changes have occurred in social development, especially in the second half of this century. Opportunities are opening up, chances are emerging to regulate relations between countries and peoples on a fundamentally different basis than in all previous history. Russia’s role in this process may also take on a new look, due to its geopolitical position.

Thus, one can only wish that these hopeful chances will be realized. But we should not forget that politics remains a harsh matter, strictly programmed by national and state interests. There is no place for baby talk here. Smiles and hugs should not deceive the realistically minded politicians regardless of their orientation.

List of sources used

1 Abalkin, L. On the national and state interests of Russia // Issues of Economics. - 1994. - No. 2. - P.54 - 58.

2 Bazhanov, E. P. The role and place of Russia in the modern world // (Center for Strategic Research. - 1999-2000.

3 Barkovsky, A. N. Foreign economic policy of Russia in the global economic space // Russia and the modern world / A. N. Barkovsky, V. P. Obolensky. - 2005. - No. 3. - P. 11-20.

4 Bulatova, A. S. Economics/A. S. Bulatova. - M.: Bek, 2004. - 345 p.

5 Visitey, N. N. The essence and social functions of modern sports / N. N. Visit. - M.: Sov. Russia, 2008. - 259 p.

6 Danilevsky, N. Ya. Russia and Europe / N. Ya. Danilevsky. - M.:Politics, 2001.- 259 p.

7 Dakhin, V. Russia in the modern world // Public service. - 2008. - No. 4. - pp. 24-29.

8 Ivanov, I. Russia and the modern world. Foreign policy of Moscow on the threshold of the 21st century // Nezavisimaya Gazeta. - 2008. - No. 2. - P. 5 - 6.

9 Mironov, S.M. The quality of power and the development strategy of Russia // Russia and the modern world. - 2006. - No. 2. - P. 9 - 15.

10 Stolyarov, V.I. Sports and modern culture/ V.I. Stolyarov. - M.: Publishing house RUDN, 2002. - 222 p.

Posted on Allbest.ru

...

The place of the Russian Federation in the modern world. About the place of Russia in the modern world What place does the Russian Federation occupy in the modern world

Tutoring

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents