The role of military power in foreign policy countries is undergoing significant changes. The nature of these changes is largely determined by the new balance of forces that took shape after the collapse of the USSR, the development of new technologies and forms of warfare, the disruption of the previously existing system of international relations, and the evolution of the views of the leading military powers on the methods and forms of the use of force.
The economic interests of countries are becoming dominant. If earlier it was still possible to talk about the prevalence of ideological interests in some states, then after the collapse of the USSR, the virtual disappearance of the camp of socialism, the increasing transition of China to the rails of a market economy, the struggle for economic dividends became the driving force behind the politics of almost all countries of the world. In the conditions of limited world resources, their growing deficit as a result of population growth and world production, more and more countries are building their foreign policy according to the principle "first eat yours, and then I eat mine." NATO has included in the list of priority tasks ensuring the energy security of the members of the bloc.
Due to the fact that economic interests are becoming the main ones in the politics of countries, the struggle for natural resources will intensify. A prime example is the Arctic, the resources of which are already claimed by countries that do not even have access to it. China, in particular, began to build Navy capable of operating in northern latitudes. In the West, they speak louder and louder that the resources of some countries, including Russia, should not belong to them alone, but to the entire world community. Even forced, including the use of military force, redistribution of national wealth is allowed. NATO already in its founding documents ("Guaranteed access to the global commons", etc.) demands a "fair" distribution of world resources.
The period of the "unipolar" world order with the undoubted military and political dominance of the United States is gradually coming to an end. The United States will remain the world's most powerful player, but increasingly will be forced to rely on key allies and partners to conduct its policies.
When speaking about a multipolar world, it should be borne in mind that a multipolar system is less stable and has a large number of degrees of freedom. The more poles in the world, the more conflicts and blood.
At the heart of modern US foreign policy is the desire to maintain global leadership. The main document that plays the role of defense doctrine is called "Maintaining the United States' Global Leadership: Defense Priorities in the 21st Century."
In an effort to ensure military superiority over any potential adversary, the United States is trying to move away from the existing concept of strategic deterrence in relations with Russia. The command of the "lightning-fast global strike" was created. This is not the command responsible for quick single non-nuclear strikes on a global scale (using, for example, individual ICBMs in conventional equipment), as many claim and believe, but the command of the first strike, strategic offensive operations using all nuclear and non-nuclear weapons. It is easy to be convinced of this by referring not to the declared political documents, but to specific doctrines and instructions for the US Armed Forces. The global missile defense system being created, according to the internal documents of the US Armed Forces, should provide guaranteed defense only for the United States and its forces. The task of protecting allies and partners is present only in political declarative documents and is included there artificially, only to calm them down, and after they began to grumble.
In the near future, Washington will continue to seek common ground for interaction with our country in resolving the Iranian and Korean problems. It is also prompted to do this by the need to contain China's claims to the role of a new superpower. The US political leadership would like to make the Russian Federation its partner in the fight against terrorism and WMD proliferation; a member of international coalitions carrying out peacekeeping and humanitarian operations; a reliable supplier of energy resources to international markets; an employee in the implementation of large, costly space programs (for example, a flight to Mars), which are ambiguously perceived by the American society.
The United States, gradually leaving the European continent for the Asia-Pacific region, entrusts the supervision of Russia to the Europeans. This is openly discussed in the US Congress. Washington will continue to exercise general leadership, while concrete steps to bring the Russian Federation closer to the West based on the values of the West will be entrusted to Europe. The purpose of this convergence is to maximize the attachment Russian Federation to the West and turning it into a country that is not a potential enemy, to which it is now ranked in official American documents. If we translate such a policy into simple language, then we should simply be strangled in the arms.
Such an approach was recently proclaimed by Washington as an official policy towards opponents, providing for their maximum involvement in cooperation and thus re-education on the values of the United States. If a potential adversary resists, then harsher measures are applied to him, up to and including military force.
The United States will continue to strengthen bilateral and multilateral military cooperation aimed at ensuring dominance in important regions (Asia-Pacific, Middle East, Central Asia).
It is likely that regional military blocs will be created with the participation of the United States in the APR and the Persian Gulf. For example, the US has already considered the possibility of forming a "mini-NATO" in the APR on the basis of the US-Japan-South Korea-Australia alliance. In addition, other configurations were analyzed: “USA-Taiwan-Philippines”, “USA-Japan-South Korea-India”. The main focus of alliances in the APR is to oppose China.
A military bloc involving monarchies and the United States may appear in the Persian Gulf in the foreseeable future. He is needed here to control the zone of vital US interests. Joint air defense and missile defense systems of the Persian Gulf countries and the corresponding command structures are already being created.
The US-led NATO bloc is transforming from a European to a global one. NATO expansion will continue, including with the involvement of non-European states, with the aim of building up capabilities for global projection of power, confrontation with the PRC and containment of Russia. NATO's global partners already include Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Mongolia, Afghanistan, Pakistan and even Colombia.
The Alliance continues to be viewed by the United States as the most important institution of power for the implementation of the United States' foreign policy and military strategy. It was the United States that initiated the transformation of NATO, providing for a significant expansion of the geographic boundaries and functions of the bloc, in particular, ensuring energy security. Since the United States managed to seize the initiative in reforming NATO, the transformation of the latter is focused primarily on a significant increase in its military capabilities, and not on the "politicization" advocated by the Europeans and in which the United States saw the danger of losing the alliance of its effectiveness. As a result of the reform, NATO should turn into an organization that provides, in the American understanding, security not only in Europe, but also in the world.
The NATO "triad" is beginning to form, repeating the American "triad" (offensive weapons - defensive weapons - supporting infrastructure), the course for the creation of which was actually proclaimed in 2012 at the summit of the alliance in Chicago.
The common nuclear forces of the North Atlantic Alliance are being formed. There is a de facto unification of the nuclear forces of France and Great Britain. Considering that the British nuclear forces have long been practically united with the US strategic nuclear forces, a collective NATO nuclear force is being created, which the United States needs in the context of nuclear arms reductions and the growing confrontation with China and Russia.
The United States, together with NATO member countries, will step up efforts to counter adversaries with the help of "soft power", that is, through their internal destabilization, collapse or establishment of controlled regimes. An illustrative example is Ukraine, where Germany, with the tacit consent of the United States, begins to play the leading role, hiding behind the EU's signboard and trying to seriously strengthen its economic positions, and then, possibly, political ones. As you know, Germany has already quietly carried out the economic occupation of almost all the former socialist countries of Europe (Poland, Czech Republic, Hungary, Bulgaria, the Baltic countries).
Despite rather ambitious statements, the NATO leadership's approach to interaction with Moscow will remain the same and will be in the nature of a compromise between the interests of the allies insisting on the use of an “active containment” strategy in relation to Russia, and members of the bloc advocating deepening bilateral cooperation. On the whole, it is possible to predict a model of "pragmatic partnership" between NATO and the Russian Federation, based not on common values, but on mutual interests.
In the foreseeable future, uncertainty will remain in the project for the construction of a "united" Europe. The amorphousness of the current EU as an independent global political player will remain. However, if earlier the United States did not allow Europe to become independent in matters of defense, now, apparently, their position will change. With the center of gravity of American policy shifting to Asia, Washington will increasingly "pressurize" the Europeans in order to build up their military muscles. So, at the 2013 summit of heads of state and government of 28 EU member states, where defense issues were the main ones, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen even said that the United States could lose interest in NATO participation if Europe did not increase its defense spending to 2% of GDP.
Sweden and Finland are likely to join NATO in 5-7 years. This will not happen under current governments. Most of the populations of both countries are opposed to joining the Alliance, but the corresponding pressure will melt, gradually changing public opinion in favor of membership in the alliance.
By 2016, Finland will virtually cease to be a neutral state. Formally, without joining the North Atlantic Alliance, it will become a member of the NATO Response Force.
The role of the most active conductor of American interests in the Old World will continue to be played by Poland, which will be assisted by the Baltic countries and some other former socialist states in which the United States has a strong position.
To regulate the rapprochement between Russia and Western European countries on the basis of Western values, the agents of American interests in Europe will continue to artificially escalate tensions on the continent. Within the framework of the Eastern Partnership program, of which Poland is the most active conductor, efforts will continue to withdraw such former Soviet republics as Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova from the influence of Russia and create on their basis a buffer zone, a kind of “wall” separating Russia from Western Europe.
Apparently, it is necessary to prepare for a serious destabilization of the situation in Moldova and its further rocking in Ukraine, their rapprochement with NATO. Moldova has long been processed in the appropriate direction by a member of the alliance - Romania, and Ukraine is being agitated by the United States, Germany, Poland and Great Britain. Ukraine and Moldova have proclaimed a course of rapprochement with Europe, but, as you know, in order to become a member of the EU, one must first become a member of NATO. All former socialist states were first forced to join NATO, and only then they were allowed to become a member of the EU. At one time, the EU intended to suspend the admission of new members, to which the NATO leadership reacted sharply. In the end, the EU decision was revised and the parallel enlargement of NATO and the EU continued.
The course of Moldova towards the West will certainly lead to an exacerbation of the situation around Transnistria, possibly to an unfreezing of the conflict.
The military-political situation in the Caucasian region is becoming more and more complicated, which is primarily due to the United States' desire to withdraw Russia from the number of significant geopolitical players in the entire Caucasian region and to form a geostrategic corridor for the direct access of Western countries to the Caspian Sea region and Central Asia. Measures are being taken to draw Georgia and Azerbaijan into NATO, to create a military base for an attack on Iran in the Caspian region. At the same time, the military-political leadership of Georgia and Azerbaijan expects help from Brussels in solving their territorial problems.
Probably, at the next NATO summit in London, one more step will be taken on the way of admitting Georgia and Azerbaijan to the alliance. Apparently, one cannot exclude the possibility of Georgia's admission to this organization without Abkhazia and South Ossetia... And in the case of Azerbaijan, one can expect an aggravation of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh with the subsequent introduction of Western peacekeepers there.
The next option for resolving the conflict, which is being promoted by the United States and is already being discussed in Yerevan and Baku, is very likely. Turkey opens border with Armenia. Azerbaijan recognizes a certain sovereignty of Nagorno-Karabakh and receives for this some areas that provide it with a transport corridor to Turkey, from the exploitation of which Armenia will also have income. As a result, the United States will receive an additional direct outlet through the Caucasus to the Caspian region and Central Asia, the grounds for the presence of a Russian military base in Armenia disappear, and the question of its withdrawal is raised.
It cannot be ruled out that the forces that are now fighting on the side of the opposition in Syria will not end up in the future in the Transcaucasus or in the North Caucasus.
The Georgian leadership does not intend to put up with the loss of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and will continue to take steps to create conditions for their return. As the main direction of achieving this goal, it is planned to use the strategy "Involvement through cooperation", which presupposes, first of all, the strengthening of economic ties. Surely, at some stage in the development of Georgia's cooperation with its former republics, the question of the further stay on the territory of the last Russian military bases will arise.
In connection with the withdrawal of NATO troops from Afghanistan, including through Azerbaijan and Georgia, American military bases will appear in these countries. For example, American generals speak about this openly.
As for Turkey, it is pursuing a policy leading to a split in the South Caucasus and the creation of a Turkey-Azerbaijan-Georgia axis in the region. The goal of this policy is to transform the emerging economic bloc of the three states into a military-political alliance. However, it should be noted that Russia, the US and the EU, considering the Caucasus as a single region, do not support such a policy of Turkey.
Turkey and Georgia have agreements on the creation of joint military units to protect strategic communications, seaports, oil pipelines, railways and airports.
Turkey oversees the Armed Forces of Azerbaijan (military educational programs, operational work, conducting exercises to the level of a regiment, reforming the Armed Forces in order to create a small professional army, re-creating the Air Force and Navy, military intelligence). The US objects to the de facto subordination of the Azerbaijani Armed Forces to Turkey and the military-political integration of these countries on an exclusively bilateral basis.
As for Iran, the decline in tension around it, apparently, will not be long. In the event that large-scale military operations are unleashed against Iran, Tehran will certainly use all its capabilities to deliver retaliatory strikes, including on the territories from which the United States will operate.
And these can be the territories of Azerbaijan and Georgia.
The problem of the international military presence in the Caspian region in recent times actualized in the context of the struggle for its hydrocarbon resources. The Caspian Sea is included in the list of zones “ vital interests»The United States, that in the event of certain unfavorable foreign policy conditions for the Russian Federation, it can contribute to the emergence of NATO military forces in the region.
We should expect an increase in tension and a destabilization of the situation in Central Asia... Here the interests of such leading players as Russia, the United States and China converge. India and Europe are showing interest in the region. The rivalry for resources and transport corridors intensifies here. In addition, the time is coming when the leaders of the Central Asian republics, due to their old age, will be forced to leave the stage, and a new generation of politicians will come to replace them. In particular, a serious aggravation of the situation under this scenario is possible in Kazakhstan. New waves of the economic crisis, as well as the partial withdrawal of NATO troops from Afghanistan in 2014, which will be followed by a surge of tension outside this country, can also accelerate regional destabilization.
The United States and its NATO allies are horrified that after leaving Afghanistan, the vacuum formed there could fill China and extend its influence to the entire region. Western countries are eagerly seeking Russia's help in containing China.
The Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) must prepare for the aggravation of the situation in Central Asia. At the same time, a potential threat to Russia is posed by the reform of the armed forces of the CSTO and CIS member states in accordance with NATO standards, the training of military personnel of the former Soviet republics in the West, the purchase of weapons there and military equipment... All this facilitates the process of accession of the Commonwealth countries to NATO, reduces Russian military exports and generally reduces Moscow's influence in the near abroad.
Unfortunately, within the framework of the CSTO, general conceptual approaches to military development have not been developed. In particular, national military doctrines are not only not coordinated between member states, but are often developed with the participation of specialists from countries belonging to other military-political blocs. The organization lacks an approved interstate language of communication, which significantly complicates the command and control of troops, hinders the development of cooperation. There is no understanding of common threats, which could become a locomotive for the development of the CSTO.
In these conditions, each of the states that make up the organization strives to independently determine its own hierarchy of threats and security challenges, which differ significantly from the threat systems of other member states.
There is no clarity about the management of regional groupings of troops (forces) created within the CSTO. So, the Collective Rapid Reaction Force (CRRF), the decision to create which was made in February 2009, are subordinate exclusively to the national commands of their states, and only if necessary, the procedure for coordinating their use begins, which in the conditions of ongoing hostilities excludes the timeliness of the use of the CRRF ...
I would like the efforts made by the CSTO leadership to be more quickly realized in building up the organization's power.
Gradually, the Asia-Pacific region, and not Europe, is becoming the "center of gravity" of world politics and economics. The "axis" of the new geopolitical game is becoming the US-China relations, which are already significantly influencing the nature of the transatlantic relations. While the United States sees China as a threat, Europeans see it in many ways as a huge additional market.
The formation of China will continue as the second world military and economic power, which, according to some estimates, by the 2030s. the current century will push the United States out of the leading position.
If you look at the Asia-Pacific countries with which the United States is actively strengthening military cooperation (and this is Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, the Philippines, Australia, New Zealand, India), then the conclusion suggests itself that Washington is building a containment belt around China.
India and Japan are likely to become the leading players not only in the Asia-Pacific region, but also in the world. India is already demonstrating rapid progress in almost all spheres of state activity, and Japan, relying on the already existing economic potential of a global scale, is taking a course towards its so-called military and foreign policy "normalization". The Ministry of Defense has been created, the law on the prohibition of the export of weapons is being revised. In the foreseeable future, Japan is likely to revise the constitution that holds back military construction in the country.
Potentially hot spots in the Asia-Pacific region, in which conflicts with the participation of leading world powers may arise, are the Korean Peninsula, the Taiwan Strait, the South China Sea, the border between India and the PRC, the Strait of Malacca and the hydrocarbon transportation route in the Indian Ocean.
The influence of the United States in the Asia-Pacific region is decreasing, while that of China is growing. Japan's foreign policy and South Korea becomes more and more independent. All countries in the region are trying to establish good-neighborly relations with China, increasingly forgetting about the United States.
It is possible that in 5-10 years the situation in East Asia will be significantly destabilized if urgent measures are not taken to create a security system. However, the prospects for creating a common security system are illusory here, since the countries pursue too different goals.
China is apparently ready to turn the SCO into a military-political alliance, but without formalizing such a transformation, so as not to provoke a sharp response and aggravate the situation in the region. The PRC is unable to independently confront the United States and its allies and needs Russian help. To strengthen regional security, it is apparently necessary to create mechanisms for interaction between the SCO and the CSTO, and form appropriate structures.
The main goal of Washington's strategy in East Asia is to maintain and strengthen the US-centric order. This strategy is based on allied relations, primarily with Japan and South Korea, which make it possible to maintain forward-based forces in the region.
The rise of the PRC poses a great risk to the regional interests of the United States, Japan, South Korea and several other countries. In American society, for example, there is no consensus about what is best for the United States: a wealthy and peaceful China or a disintegrating and chaotic one.
Japan seeks to limit influence in the region of the United States and the PRC, is trying to create a Japan-centered community in East Asia by concluding economic agreements with Singapore, Malaysia and the Philippines, building an economic bloc based on the yen.
China is not yet interested in the destruction of the American-Japanese alliance, because, as Beijing believes, having escaped from American tutelage, Japan will sharply intensify its military construction, expand its zone of interests, which will seriously complicate the situation in the region.
Tokyo supports the peaceful reunification of the two Koreas and the improvement of relations between the PRC and Taiwan. The likelihood of Japan developing nuclear weapons will depend on the further development of the situation in the region. Those military operations in which the Japanese Armed Forces are participating today are carried out within the framework of the fight against terrorism and are inherently peacekeeping, which does not require amending the country's Constitution. However, in the foreseeable future, amendments to it will, apparently, be made, since the Japanese leadership intends to expand the possibilities of using the national armed forces abroad.
The level of Japanese-American interaction has approached the level of cooperation between the United States and NATO allies.
As it is believed in South Korea, the United States is increasingly sacrificing its interests, if necessary. The withdrawal of American troops from the country is considered one of such possible "victims", for which many in Washington advocate. The withdrawal of the Americans will increase tensions in relations between Seoul and Tokyo; it is not ruled out that the Republic of Korea (ROK) may initiate its own game against Japan and China in order to survive. If, at the same time, the military presence of the United States remains in Japan, the ROK may become neutral or go to an alliance with the PRC.
Many in South Korea believe that Beijing opposes the unification of the two Koreas, because it does not want to combine the nuclear power of the North with the economic power of the South and the appearance of a new powerful player at its side. Since the keys to solving the problem of the North Korean nuclear program, discussed in the framework of the six-party talks, are in the hands of the United States and China, the meetings will take place more than once, because the main actors are not interested in their completion, since this will remove one of the important obstacles to the reunification of peoples.
The United States is trying to drag Russia into the process of further reductions in nuclear weapons, which, given NATO's significant superiority in precision-guided and conventional weapons, will only increase the existing military imbalance.
The propaganda campaign of the international non-governmental organization Global Zero, which calls for the elimination of all nuclear weapons, is gaining momentum. Everyone understands the unreality of such a situation in any foreseeable future; nevertheless, this initiative was officially supported by US President Barack Obama.
The United States and its NATO allies are seriously considering concluding a new treaty to limit conventional forces in Europe. the main objective which - to make "visible" the Russian Armed Forces and the exercises conducted by them. The allies are very worried about the lack of information about the RF Armed Forces.
The United States is actively expanding its military space activities. At present, the American Armed Forces are already 90% dependent on space systems, according to representatives of the Pentagon. Operational manuals have already been issued on the use of force in space, from space - on the ground, from the ground - in the direction of space. Flight tests are underway space systems that can become space weapons. At the same time, the United States does not intend to conclude any agreements in the field of limiting military space activities.
What should Russia do? First of all, get stronger. In addition, pursue a policy of active neutrality, which implies equidistance from such centers of power as the United States and China, and actively promoting initiatives that contribute to strengthening global security.
post-war economic reform political
The first post-war decade was a very tense and interesting period in the life of our country. During these years, the reconstruction of villages, cities and entire regions destroyed during the war was actively going on, factories, factories rose from the ruins, new industries were created.
Among the main external factors that had a tremendous impact on the development of the country, one should, first of all, include the beginning of the "cold war" between the USSR and the leading Western countries. By now, the majority of Russian and a number of foreign historians have formed the opinion that both the Soviet and Western sides bear equal responsibility for unleashing the Cold War. Both sides proceeded from their geopolitical interests and sought to maximize the position of the winners to strengthen their positions in the world.
As for Soviet foreign policy, it continued to reflect the traditional desire of the Bolshevik party to weaken the position of the "camp of imperialism" by international scene and to support the "world communist movement". But on the other hand, the actions of the Soviet leadership were to a large extent objectively conditioned by the lessons of the hardest war that had just ended. After the victory in the Great Patriotic War, the leadership of the USSR strove to create a belt of friendly states around our country.
In the West, similar actions Soviet Union were regarded as manifestations of expansion. By 1947, the US administration had proclaimed a policy of "containment of communism," that is, opposition to the Soviet Union. It found concrete expression in Directive No. 20/1 adopted by the US National Security Council on August 18, 1948. According to the directive, the United States was to strive "... a) to reduce the power and influence of Moscow to the limits in which it would no longer pose a threat to peace and stability international relations; b) radically change the theory and practice of international relations, which the government in power in Russia adheres to. "
Based on the proclaimed political goals, the US leadership suggested that the military develop a strategy for their actions in the event of a war with the Soviet Union. At the same time, both the US administration and the military command, relying on the created atomic weapons and powerful long-range aviation, did not rule out the outbreak of a preemptive war, trying to play this trump card before similar weapons were created by the Soviet Union.
The policy pursued by the United States of America towards the Soviet Union found full support and understanding in other Western countries. Ultimately, this led to the creation in 1949 of the military-political NATO bloc. The course taken by the governments of the United States and its allies to prepare for war with the USSR required appropriate intelligence support. In this regard, the main efforts of both the military and foreign policy intelligence services of the NATO member countries were aimed primarily at collecting information about the military and economic potential of the Soviet Union, its mobilization capabilities.
As a result, the Soviet Union was gradually enveloped along the perimeter of its borders not only by military bases, but also by the intelligence agencies of the NATO side countries. Intelligence units of the CIA, SIS and some other special services operated under the cover of diplomatic missions of Western countries in Moscow, as well as from Japan, South Korea, Iran, Turkey, Greece, Italy, Germany, Austria, Sweden and Norway. A clear confirmation of this can be seen in the operations of American and British intelligence to send illegal agents into the USSR. Aircraft of the US and British Air Forces launched with agents on board from the territory of Greece, the island of Malta, West Germany, and Japan. In other cases, illegal immigrants entered the USSR through the land border from Turkey, Iran, Finland and Norway. The above facts allow us to say that the activities against the USSR by the special services of the NATO member states and, above all, the United States of America, gradually acquired a global character during the first post-war decade.
Another distinctive feature of the intelligence and subversive activities of the Western special services against the USSR in the period 1945-1954 was the use of sharp means, forms and methods of work, which, however, to a certain extent was typical for the Soviet side as well. Attempts to activate the armed nationalist underground in western regions The USSR, the breakthroughs of agents into the territory of the USSR through the land border with a fight, the abduction of Soviet servicemen and civilians in Austria and Germany for the purpose of recruiting and other similar actions heated up the political and operational situation.
In the conditions of the one-party political system that existed in the country, the actual leadership in the field of ensuring state security, military development, etc. concentrated in the post-war period in the hands of a narrow circle of people who were members of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b). The organs of "Smersh" - the NKGB-MGB-Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR were under constant control of I.V. Stalin, as well as a curator appointed from among the members of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b). In the post-war period, they were alternately A.A. Kuznetsov, G.M. Malenkov and N.A. Bulganin.
All important decisions in the field legal regulation the activities of the state security bodies were taken according to the same pattern that had been established over the years. The initiators - they, as a rule, were the members of the Politburo and the Central Committee of the CPSU (b), the Central Committee and regional committees of the party of the union and autonomous republics, territories and regions, the central apparatus of "Smersh" - NKGB - MGB - Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR came out with their proposals to the Secretariat of the Central Committee VKP (b), which considered and approved them as the first instance. On secondary issues - appointments of heads of local state security bodies, minor staff changes etc. the decision of the Secretariat of the Central Committee of the CPSU (b) was enough and it, formalized in writing, was sent for execution to the executive body - the Council of Ministers of the USSR, which adopted the corresponding resolution.
In the materials for the draft of the new party program against the text characterizing the post-war struggle of the United States for world domination, Stalin left the following interesting note in the margins: “The theory of 'cosmopolitanism' and the formation of the United States. States of Europe with a single pr-vom. "World government"". This litter gives an idea of how Stalin perceived the post-war balance of power in the world arena, which explains the need to fight the internal and external enemy, why he was convinced of the need to further strengthen the apparatus of power, including personal power.
It is known that during the Great Patriotic War due to the extremely difficult political and operational situation, the fight against the so-called "anti-Soviet" was very tough. The organs of the NKVD - "Smersh" - NKGB ruthlessly suppressed all sorts of even the slightest "anti-Soviet" manifestations. After the end of the Second World War, the situation changed somewhat. The victory over the formidable adversary and the associated growth in the self-awareness of the population, soldiers and officers of the armed forces led to the emergence of hopes for change in post-war Soviet society. So in the middle of 1945, rumors circulated among the villagers, part of the intelligentsia that soon, in accordance with an agreement with the allies, collective farms would be liquidated, a multi-party system would be allowed in the country under pressure from the United States and England, and a bourgeois-democratic system would be established.
The period of some "liberalization" in the sphere of ideology turned out to be quite short. It seems that one of the main reasons for the new toughening of the struggle against the "anti-Sovietists" was the "cold war" with the West, which began in the period 1946-1947. In the face of the threat of a new serious military conflict, the leadership of the country and state security agencies again, as it was in the late 1930s, not limited to the persecution of individual dissidents, organized and conducted a number of "massive operations" to "cleanse" the central and border regions of the country from "politically unreliable" contingents of the population.
On the whole, in spite of certain costs, it should be admitted that in the conditions of the outbreak of the Cold War, the state security agencies of the USSR were at the height of the demands of the moment. Suppressing the intelligence and subversive activities of foreign intelligence services and illegal armed groups, they made a significant contribution to ensuring the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country, preserving the international positions conquered by the USSR during the Second World War.
The arms race was voluntarily suspended by the mid-60s. A number of treaties were concluded limiting the accumulation of weapons. Such as, for example, the Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Submarine (08/05/1963), the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Creation of Nuclear-Free Zones (1968), the SALT-1 Agreement (limitation and reduction of strategic weapons) (1972), the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological and Toxin Weapons and on Their Destruction (1972) and many others.
Since the achievement of strategic parity (the beginning of the sixties), the military component of the arms race has gradually been relegated to the background, while the struggle for influence in the Third World countries has been playing out on the stage. The term itself was introduced into everyday life due to the increasing influence of non-aligned countries that did not openly adhere to one of the warring parties. If at first, the very fact of the confrontation between two powerful systems on the world map led to a landslide decolonization (the period of the liberation of Africa), then in more late period a circle of states has been formed that openly and very effectively use the choice of their political orientation towards this or that superpower. To a certain extent, this can include the countries of the so-called Arab socialism, which solved their specific narrowly national tasks at the expense of the USSR.
The Cold War was fought not only in politics, but also in the field of culture and sports. For example, the United States and many Western European countries boycotted the 1980 Olympics in Moscow. In response, athletes from Eastern Europe boycotted the next Olympics in Los Angeles in 1984. The Cold War was widely reflected in cinematography, with propaganda films filmed by both sides. In the United States, these are: "Red Dawn", "America", "Rimbaud, First Blood, Part II", "Iron Eagle", "Invasion of the USA". In the USSR, they filmed: "Night without mercy", "Neutral waters", "Case in the square 36 - 80", "Solo voyage" and many others. Despite the fact that the films are completely different, in them, with varying degrees talent, showed what bad "they" and what good guys serve in our army. In a peculiar and very precise way, the manifestation of the "cold war" in art was reflected in a line from a popular song "and even in the field of ballet, we are ahead of the whole planet ..."
It is quite obvious that the huge costs incurred by the superpowers could not continue indefinitely, and as a result, the confrontation between the two systems was resolved in the economic sphere. It was this component that was ultimately decisive. The more efficient economy of the West made it possible not only to maintain military and political parity, but also to meet the growing needs of modern people, which, due to purely market-based economic mechanisms, could competently manipulate. At the same time, the heavyweight economy of the USSR, focused only on the production of weapons and means of production, could not, and did not intend to compete with the West in this area. In the end, this was reflected at the political level, the USSR began to lose the fight not only for influence in the third world countries, but also for influence within the socialist community.
The competition between the two systems developed in the economic sphere, and in the 60s - 80s it became more and more fierce. The West had a clear advantage in it: starting positions, moreover, in the United States during the Second World War, the economic potential has grown significantly. The system of cooperation of developed countries was also more perfect, while the "socialist bloc" included, in addition to the USSR, countries that played an insignificant role in the world economy, many of which suffered enormous damage during the war years. Lingering mechanism formation international division labor within the CMEA interfered with the coordination of national economic plans and the implementation of joint projects. As a result, already in the mid-1980s, the level of international division of labor in Western Europe turned out to be an order of magnitude higher than in Eastern Europe. A major step forward in the integration of the CMEA countries was the comprehensive program adopted in 1971 for further deepening and improving cooperation, calculated for 15-20 years. The most ambitious joint economic projects were the construction of the Druzhba oil pipeline and the Soyuz gas pipeline, the participation of allied countries in the development of raw materials in Siberia and Central Asia, construction industrial enterprises in different countries. The Soviet Union supplied 8.3 million tons of oil to Eastern European countries in 1965, about 50 million tons in 1975, and 508 million tons by the early 1980s. Soviet oil prices were significantly lower than world prices, since the USSR has undertaken the obligation to supply raw materials at lower prices.
Cooperation was actively developing within the framework of the Warsaw Pact (ATS) organization. Almost every year in the 80s, general maneuvers were carried out, mainly on the territory of the USSR, Poland and the GDR.
Partial reforms of the "Soviet model of socialism" in none of the countries of the Eastern European bloc have led to a qualitative increase in production efficiency.
The Brezhnev Doctrine recognized the presence of weak links in the socialist front, the possibility of capitalism restoration due to objective difficulties and subjective errors, the likelihood of war with the imperialist encirclement, the extreme nature of such an action as military assistance to a friendly country in defending socialist sovereignty. L. Brezhnev emphasized that the sovereignty of the socialist state is the common property of all Marxist-Leninists: “When a threat to the cause of socialism in one country arises, a threat to the security of the socialist community as a whole, it becomes not only a problem for the people of that country, but also common problem, the concern of all socialist countries. " The policy of "non-interference", in his opinion, directly contradicted the interests of the defense of the fraternal states. In order not to yield, not to give up a grain of what it has won to the bourgeoisie, to prevent a deviation from Marxism-Leninism, one must firmly adhere to “ general patterns socialist construction ".
Relations with the developed capitalist countries gradually acquired an increasingly constructive character. From the mid-1960s, relations with France began to improve, which became the starting point for a policy of detente, especially in Europe. The subsequent agreements with the FRG were developed in a number of treaties of European states. By the mid-1970s, England briefly joined the process of normalizing relations with the USSR. Special meaning had a Pan-European Meeting on Security and Cooperation in Europe in Helsinki in 1975. Negotiations have intensified on a number of specific problems related to arms limitation. In 1972, the convention on the prohibition of the development, production and accumulation of stocks of bacteriological (biological) and toxic weapons and on their destruction was signed, and in 1975 came into force - the first real disarmament measure in the history of international relations.
In 1973, 19 states began negotiations in Vienna on the reduction of armed forces and armaments in Central Europe. The discussion was based on the principles of equality of obligations, without prejudice to the security of any of the parties, and renunciation of unilateral military advantages.
Significant progress has been made in Soviet-American relations. In a number of agreements, which laid the foundation for the process of defusing international tension, the principles of Soviet-American interaction in the field of strategic weapons were agreed upon, which reduced the threat of war. In 1974, an agreement was signed to limit nuclear tests underground.
In the second half of the 70s, the relaxation of tension began to subside. In 1979, the United States creates a "rapid deployment force", proclaims a "new nuclear strategy"With a stake on the" preemptive "strike. The obvious mistake of the political leadership of the USSR was the introduction in 1979 of a "limited contingent" Soviet troops to Afghanistan.
The transition from the exhausting, hardest for the Soviet Union war of 1941-1945. almost without interruption to confrontation and " cold war"provided extremely difficult impact on the internal situation... The USSR, along with the United States, became one of the centers of the bipolar world, but the political weight and ambitions of the victorious country were diametrically at odds with its economic capabilities. Conducting global world politics as a counterbalance to the United States absorbed all the national economic resources of the Soviet Union... Confrontation in the international arena demanded more and more new means, was disastrous for a destroyed country with a huge loss-making and militarized economy. The Cold War maintained a mobilizing spirit in society, and the country's human and natural resources were still sacrificed to the arms race. Ideological blinders did not allow the country's leadership to see the fatal nature of the confrontation, it was extremely slow to realize that there could be no winners in the nuclear race.
2. Post-war national economy Priorities of economic policy
The war created a completely new economic situation. On the liberated territory, industry was almost completely destroyed, the material and technical base of agriculture presented a miserable picture, and huge damage was caused to the railway communication. Almost all of the country's resources were concentrated on defense enterprises, most of which received a "rebirth" after the evacuation in the east of the country. It was here that the weapon of victory was forged, factories and factories worked at full power.
The transition to a peaceful life demanded at the same time restore the destroyed economy and put industrial production on a "peaceful way"... There was a natural desire to quickly establish a peaceful life - to restore the housing stock, to increase the production of food and consumer goods, which were sorely lacking. Again, I had to rely only on my own strength and internal resources. Ultimately, everything depended on the nature and depth of the conversion of military production. How far the Soviet Union could afford to go along the path of disarmament depended entirely on the prospect of a new war. A sharp deterioration in the international situation in late 1945 and early 1946 coincided with the discussion of development priorities National economy for the fourth five-year plan (1946-1950). Of course, their definition turned out to be highly dependent on the new foreign policy situation, which dictated the ratio of the military and civilian sectors of the economy.
While maintaining a high proportion of military products, the development of heavy industry was naturally placed at the forefront. But even in this situation, it was possible to speed up the pace of development of group "A" to a greater or lesser extent, to revive the organization of production and distribution. The ideologist of this "smooth", more liberal version was the chairman of the State Planning Committee of the USSR N.A. Voznesensky, who was supported by Zhdanov in the Politburo. In his report on the fourth five-year plan, Voznesensky, in fact, for the first time, declared the need to include economic levers (price, money, credit, profit, and a number of others) in the process of managing a planned economy. However, good wishes remained only on paper.
A number of factors led to the rejection in practice of the proposed more balanced model of economic development already in the course of the plan. Increased international confrontation played a key role, which turned the production of weapons into a condition of bipolar equilibrium. It was also important that the implementation of the five-year plan fell on the shoulders of the party-economic nomenklatura and the director corps, who grew up during the years of the “socialist offensive”. This generation of Soviet leaders, with their mother's milk, absorbed idiosyncrasy to any notions reminiscent of capitalism, such as "credit" and "profit." They had a fresh memory of the struggle against the Right deviation; they had neither the ability nor the desire to put into practice the proposed innovations. Zhdanov's sudden death, the regrouping of political forces in the highest echelons of power, the arrest and execution of Voznesensky also played an important role in determining the economic strategy. In addition, Stalin reaffirmed the pre-war course towards building a communist society in the next 20-30 years, which provoked a return to the forced pace, which has become a reality since 1948.
For Peter it was absolutely clear that Russia could become a great power only by reaching the sea. Arkhangelsk and Azov, located in the distant outskirts of the state, could not be of decisive importance for the development of relations with foreign countries.
In his History of the Russian Army, Kersnovsky notes that the conquest of the Black Sea coast for Peter I was not as urgent and paramount as the acquisition of a "window to Europe" on the Baltic Sea.
First of all, the fight against Turkey was unthinkable without allies. The allies in this struggle, Austria and Poland, refused to continue the Azov war. Austria was preoccupied with the question of the newly discovered Spanish legacy, Poland did not see any benefits for itself in the campaigns against Moldova.
But even in the event of a victory over Turkey, the use of the Black Sea presented, in Peter's opinion, many inconveniences.
The exits from it were in Turkish hands, and in the end they led to the Mediterranean, that is, to the countries of Latin culture, to which, as well as to the Jesuits, Peter had a steady aversion.
He decided to "look for light" in the north, from the Dutch and the British, and for this he had to take possession of the Baltic coast, that is, to withstand the struggle with Sweden.
Peter outlined for himself allies in this struggle - Denmark and Poland, who had their own scores with the Swedish king. The foreign policy course of Russia was not easy to form, since Russia had practically no experience in diplomacy. The relations of foreign states were completely unknown to the Russians.
For example, sending the first ambassador to Turkey in 1701, Peter ordered him to find out "which European state the Turks respect more, which people they love more."
The foreigners also had almost no information about the number of troops and ships.
Only the Great Embassy of Peter, undertaken by him in 1697-1698, allowed him to significantly expand his horizons.
Even before that, Peter managed to gather some useful information from foreigners who lived in Russia.
According to Kersnovsky's testimony, friendship with the Dutch, Braidt and Timmerman, awakened Peter's sympathy for Holland and led to a prejudiced enmity towards the enemy of the Dutch, Louis XIV.
The victory of the Anglo-Dutch fleet over the French at Hug, in 1692, was celebrated in Russia with illumination and cannon fire in the Preobrazhensky town. Thus, Franco-Russian relations deteriorated before they could start.
The most characteristic feature European politics at that time there was a rivalry between France and Austria, which began in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries. Turkey and Sweden sided with France in this fight.
By coincidence, these two allies of Louis XIV were natural opponents of Russia. The collision of Russia with them during the resumption of the process of its state development was inevitable, and this circumstance predetermined the nature of Franco-Russian relations for the entire 18th century.
The reason for the Russophobic policy of the Bourbons lies precisely in this. The sudden appearance of Russia in the international arena, Peter's resumption of the traditionally great-power policy was for France an event highly undesirable, which could weaken her allies and deprive her of support. After all, if Charles XII had not been absorbed in the struggle with Russia, he would certainly have taken part in the struggle for the Spanish inheritance, thereby rescuing France.
Therefore, according to Kersnovsky, throughout the entire 18th century, the Versailles cabinet was the soul of intrigue against Russia.
The same "History of the Russian Army" states that Peter I did not converge too closely with any of the foreign powers, thanks to which Russian blood was not shed under him for other people's interests. On August 18, 1700, peace was signed with Turkey. The very next day, August 19, Peter declared war on Sweden.
After Crimean War England, taking advantage of the weakening of Russia, intensified its expansionist aspirations near its southern borders, seeking to gain a foothold in Persia. At the insistence of Palmerston, British troops landed in the Persian Gulf region in early 1857. Under the threat of British occupation, the Shah of Persia signed a trade agreement beneficial to England.
The struggle between Russia and England for influence over Persia and Turkey was fought in the Caucasus as well. It can be said that the Turkish and Persian issues in Russian foreign policy were to some extent a Caucasian issue. British agents in the Caucasus strongly supported the struggle of the mountaineers against Russia, supplying them with everything they needed. England wanted to tighten as much as possible Caucasian War to both drain the military and economic resources Russian Empire. In 1857, it was planned to send several English ships to the Caucasus with a large load of military equipment for the highlanders.
However, Russian diplomats became aware of this. Gorchakov took a number of measures to combat the intrigues of British and Turkish agents on the Caucasian coast. In a special memo, he outlined his views on the Caucasian War and its relationship with the political course of Russia in the West, pointing out that Russia's foreign policy in the East is closely related to its policy in the West. It was said that it is necessary to keep large forces both in the Caucasus and on the western border in order to demonstrate to the Western powers that Russia is ready to defend its interests in all directions.
Considerable attention was paid to Russia's policy towards Turkey and the Balkans. Russian consulates were restored in Moldova, Wallachia and Turkey. On June 30, 1856, Gorchakov sent to Constantinople the secret adviser Butenev, who knew Turkey and the Balkans well, with a special assignment to the Sultan. On July 7, 1856, a commission was appointed to clarify the borders with Asian Turkey. At the same time, a Russian representative was sent to Bucharest for a thorough study internal state principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia. But since Russia was weakened by the Crimean War, Gorchakov tried to be careful in foreign policy in the Balkans and the Middle East.
Initially, it seemed that France could become an ally of Russia, which did not receive territorial benefits in the Crimean War and dreamed of expanding its borders by annexing the left bank of the Rhine, Nice and Savoy. Long before the Paris Congress, Gorchakov dreamed of a close alliance with France. Count P.D. Kiselyov, a supporter of rapprochement with this country, was appointed Ambassador of Russia to France. The interests of Russia and France coincided in many ways. The fundamentals of Russia's foreign policy promulgated by Gorchakov after the Paris Congress were in line with the diplomatic plans of Napoleon III. The common position was taken by both countries in relation to Austria. Russia was outraged by the hostile position taken by Austria in relation to it during the Crimean War. Napoleon III was looking in Russia for some counterbalance to the further strengthening of England, although he was not going to break England at that time. In addition, Russia, like France, was interested in weakening the influence of Turkey, Austria and England in the Middle East. During the meeting of Napoleon III and Alexander II in Stuttgart in 1857, cooperation between the two countries began. Gorchakov, in his note on secret negotiations in Stuttgart, gave detailed description the international situation preceding the conclusion of the Franco-Russian treaty of 1859. Its essence was that neither England, nor Russia, nor France were going to support Austria. Alexander II told the representative of Napoleon III about his readiness to provide him with diplomatic support in the war with Austria.
The first result of the beginning of rapprochement between France and Russia was the successful overcoming of the next crisis in the Balkans. This crisis was associated with the events in Serbia (namely, with the ongoing dynastic confrontation between Obrenovich and Karadjordjevic) and in the Danube principalities.
In Serbia, the assembly deposed at the end of 1858 Prince Alexander Karageogrievich, blaming him for the fact that Serbia adhered to neutrality during the Crimean War. Instead, Milos Obrenovic was re-elected. There was a threat of military intervention by Austria and Turkey. Back in April 1858 began fighting Turkey against Montenegro, where the 20,000-strong Ottoman army invaded. However, on May 13, she was defeated at Grakhov. Turkey agreed to a suspension of hostilities, but achieved international recognition of Montenegro as part of its territory. Russian and French squadrons were sent to the Balkan coast of the Adriatic Sea. As a result of the joint actions of St. Petersburg and Paris, the Serbian and Montenegrin issues received a peaceful resolution: the Sultan was forced to make concessions and agree to peaceful settlement controversial border issues in favor of Montenegro and recognize the change of dynasty in Serbia. After the death of Milos in 1860, his son Mikhail became prince again.
The Russian-French rapprochement also contributed to the withdrawal of Turkish and Austrian troops from the territory of the Danube principalities in 1857, which allowed them to restore self-government and proceed to the process of unification, which caused special support from Napoleon III. In January 1859, elections for rulers were held in Moldavia and Wallachia. Colonel Alexander Ioann Cuza was elected to both thrones, which violated the provisions of the treaty of 1856, and Porta, as an exception, granted Prince Kuza a double investiture on December 23, 1861.
In connection with the brewing military conflict in the late 1850s. between France and Austria on the Italian issue, the French emperor Napoleon III sought support from Russia. Russia willingly went to rapprochement with France in order to tear her away from the anti-Russian bloc. On March 3, 1859, a secret treaty was concluded between Russia and France in Paris, according to which Russia pledged to maintain neutrality during the war between France and Austria. Russia also pledged to keep Prussia from interfering in the war. Having secured itself from the intervention of other powers, France openly led matters to an aggravation of the conflict and, with a clever maneuver, provoked Austria to declare war. In April 1859, France and the Kingdom of Sardinia declared war on Austria. But Napoleon III's attempt to involve Russia in the military conflict also failed, although Russia was interested in weakening Austria. Russia only pledged to deploy an army of 4 corps on the border with Austria in order to neutralize the 150,000-strong Austrian grouping in Galicia. Russia also promised to take France's benevolent neutrality and contribute to the preservation of neutrality by other powers, and above all by Prussia. France promised in return to agree with Austria on changes to the existing treaties. However, Russia failed to meet the demands for a military demonstration near the Austrian border. The reason was the fact that it took at least five and a half months to concentrate 4 buildings. An attempt at mobilization in Volyn ended in failure: only 30 thousand people were collected. Gorchakov's proposal to transfer part of the 300-thousandth Caucasian army to the west met with opposition from the governor A.I.Baryatinsky and therefore was not implemented. As a result, the Austrians began to transfer troops from Galicia to Italy, leaving only a corps of 30,000 there. Yet Russia's neutrality made it easier for France and Sardinia to win over Austria. Even before the outbreak of hostilities, Russia and France did not support the political demarche of Great Britain and Prussia, which took the initiative to unilaterally disarm Sardinia, fearing an excessive strengthening of France. Austrian diplomacy proved incapable of playing a long game. She failed to prevent the start of the war, which began on April 29 and was marked by a number of defeats of the Austrian army. The defeat of Austria served as a signal for a revolutionary struggle in Italy for her national unification. Only the fear of Napoleon III of the Italian national liberation movement saved Austria from complete collapse. On July 12, 1859, the Treaty of Villafranca was concluded, ending the war.
After the conclusion of the Paris Peace Treaty, the Caucasian army stepped up efforts to pacify Chechnya and Circassia. The situation was complicated by the fact that there was practically no naval blockade of the coast. For this reason, the Russians were able to intercept no more than 2% of military contraband. In 1857, 2.5-3 thousand Turkish shallow-draft ships reached the Circassian coast, in 1858 - about 800. However, the successes of the Russian troops, on the one hand, and fatigue local population from continuous hostilities, on the other hand, they began to bear fruit. The demand for military goods began to fall, and in 1859 the number of ships that illegally passed to the Caucasian coast decreased to 198. This, accordingly, affected the course of hostilities. In 1858, Shamil once again proposed negotiations, hoping in this way to gain time. However, Baryatinsky responded with a decisive refusal, and then on August 25, 1859, Shamil, being surrounded in the high-mountainous village of Gunib, surrendered.
However, after the Franco-Italian-Austrian war of 1859, relations between Russia and France arose serious complications... Napoleon III did not fulfill his promises in relation to Russia, arguing that she could not prevent the transfer of Austrian troops from Galicia, but thereby undermined the confidence in him on the part of Gorchakov and Alexander II. Nevertheless, the parties retained the semblance of cooperation. Gorchakov hoped that in the future there would be a transition from visibility to a real and mutually beneficial union. However, Alexander II began to doubt the possibility of such a prospect. Brunnov suggested that it is best not to have an emperor of France "neither among friends, nor among enemies." But the Russian emperor said that "it is more useful to have him among the allies, if we could rely on him."
On October 10-14 (22-26), 1860, Alexander II met with the Austrian emperor and the Prussian prince-regent in Warsaw, where Franz Joseph was invited as a sign of reconciliation. Russian emperor refused to give any guarantees of the security and integrity of Austria in the event of a new Austro-Italian war, a clash with France or an uprising in Hungary, offering to resolve all controversial issues, primarily in Italy, by reaching an agreement with France. Appeals to conservative unity were again rejected, although they sounded against the backdrop of yet another upsurge in the Polish national movement. Thus, Russia still remained faithful to the course of rapprochement with France, despite the beginning of a break.
The Russian-French rapprochement was again brought about by complications in the East. In 1861, after the death of Sultan Abdul-Majid, Abdul-Azis ascended the throne, pursuing a policy of brutally suppressing anti-Ottoman demonstrations in Syria, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Serbia and Montenegro. A series of crises began again in the Balkan Peninsula.
In the summer of 1861, Turkish troops began a blockade of Montenegro, which was helping the rebellious Serbs in Herzegovina. France and Russia once again supported the Montenegrins. Thanks to their efforts, the blockade of Montenegro was actually thwarted: the principality continued to receive food, ammunition and weapons from both countries. The following year, the Turks invaded the territory of Montenegro and devastated a significant part of it. However, the Montenegrins put up heroic resistance and once again managed to thwart plans to establish Turkish control over their country.
At the same time, a crisis arose in Serbia. On June 15, 1862, soldiers of the Turkish garrison stationed in the Belgrade fortress of Kale-Meidan killed a Serb. Outraged residents of Belgrade blocked and besieged the fortress, in response, the fortress's artillery fired at the city for 5 hours.
In 1862, Baron A. F. Budberg was sent to Napoleon III on an emergency assignment, replacing PD Kiselyov on the post. Budberg was a supporter of an alliance with Prussia, but he managed to continue the work of his predecessor. As a result of the concerted actions of Russia and France, it was possible to soften the conditions put forward by Turkey in relation to Montenegro. On August 29, 1862, a peace treaty was signed on difficult conditions for Montenegro. However, the principality was given the opportunity for a peaceful respite. The Allies succeeded in reducing the number of Turkish fortresses in Serbia from six to four. On September 4, 1862, they were evacuated. To strengthen the Serbian army, Russia provided Serbia with a loan of 300 thousand Austrian ducats, 39.2 thousand rifles and 3 thousand sabers. In 1862, the standing army of Serbia was 3,100 people. with 12 guns, and the reserve of the militia - 50.5 thousand people. with 36 guns.
The lull was short-lived. In October 1862, riots broke out in Athens, supported by the army. On October 10, 1862, King Otto was forced to abdicate. Thanks to the joint actions of Russia and France, it was possible to prevent the election to the Greek throne of Prince Alfred, the son of Queen Victoria. On March 18, 1863, the National Assembly of Greece proposed to become king to Prince William George of Denmark. On October 10, 1863, he was crowned the throne of Greece.
Only the crisis in the Danube principalities was relatively calmly resolved. On February 5, 1862, Alexander Cuza announced the union of the principalities of Moldavia and Wallachia, as a result of which a new state was created - Romania.
