Migration as a consequence of the EU foreign policy strategy. Vladimir, Yaroslav, Vladimir Monomakh_tasks Consequence of foreign policy activities

In the context of discussing Russia's foreign policy, we should return again to the question of the mechanism for preparing, making and implementing decisions in this most important area of ​​national security, which was already discussed in the fourth chapter of this manual.

For professional diplomats and serious foreign policy experts, there is no doubt that an effective mechanism for making and implementing foreign policy decisions is one of the key conditions for an effective foreign policy. Subjective decisions that are calculated half a step ahead and are based on opportunistic considerations are absolutely unacceptable here, since any step can be strategic in nature and have long-term consequences, even if the subjects making the decision on this step do not realize this at a given time. Therefore, all successful countries strive to make every effort to create and improve the mechanism for making foreign policy decisions.

What characterizes such mechanisms in countries such as the United States of America, France, Germany, Great Britain, etc.? There are five key features.

The first is the collegial nature of the development and adoption of foreign policy decisions, the involvement in this process of all or, if possible, all subjects of international activity.

The second feature is the reliance, when making and developing foreign policy decisions, on deep analytics, on expertise, which is provided not only by government research centers, but also by non-governmental organizations. That is, reliance on a broad expert community.

The third feature is that such a mechanism, as a rule, is based on strategic planning, which, in turn, is based on short-, medium- and long-term forecasting. For example, American foreign policy thought is based on serious forecasts of the development of the world situation, including long-term ones. And without a forecast, as we know, no strategy can be built. Thus, strategic planning for a successful foreign policy is absolutely necessary.

The fourth feature is the transparency of the mechanism for making foreign policy decisions. In turn, this transparency is associated with painstaking work with the media. We are talking about holding regular briefings by subjects of international activity, including, of course, foreign policy agencies. In the above-mentioned successful countries, it is believed that this kind of transparency in the adoption and implementation of foreign policy decisions ensures the achievement of a national consensus on foreign policy issues, since certain procedures and “logic” of making and implementing such decisions by the executive branch become accessible to understanding by the general public.

And finally, the fifth sign is strict executive discipline in the implementation of foreign policy decisions. Only disputes within the country regarding certain foreign policy orientations, this or that foreign policy course are considered acceptable. In successful countries, disagreements and public discussion of these disagreements between representatives of various executive authorities and even between representatives of executive and legislative authorities abroad, at international conferences, are considered completely unacceptable in successful countries. Let us once again mention US foreign policy practice. It is believed there, for example, that Americans who travel abroad and participate in international conferences must defend with a united front the national interests of the United States, about which there is, if not national consensus, then broad national agreement within the country. Raising disputes for public discussion abroad is considered unacceptable, even indecent.

If we compare the foreign policy mechanism with the indicated characteristics with the domestic foreign policy mechanism, we can easily see that we have nothing or almost none of these components.

It is known that formally the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is responsible for coordinating foreign policy activities, but, frankly speaking, in recent years, already under V. Putin, there were many signs that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in a number of cases was simply thrown out of the process of preparing, making and implementing decisions in the field of foreign policy, from foreign policy activities in general. First of all, this concerns our relations with the countries of the post-Soviet space. Everyone knows examples of our extremely unsuccessful, uncoordinated actions in Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, and so on.

As a result, no one can understand - neither in our society nor abroad - who makes decisions on these foreign policy issues? In any case, if we talk about Ukraine, about the “gas war” with Ukraine, about Georgia, about the Russian-Belarusian alliance that failed miserably, then one gets the impression, and this impression is stable, that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in these cases is not a subject of foreign policy activity at all.

How the Security Council of the Russian Federation works was described in the fourth chapter of the manual. This work is simply not visible. Of course, we have one more subject of foreign policy activity – the Presidential Administration. But it is clear that the Administration primarily serves the activities of the President himself and is, at least in accordance with our legislation, unconstitutional, i.e. a technical body that discusses the President’s events. Nothing more. This body, neither in its status nor in its capabilities, simply cannot take on conceptual foreign policy work. His tasks are different.

Next point. Our expert community also practically turned out to be thrown out of the process of developing foreign policy decisions. The fact that our executive power does not rely on the expert community at all is obvious to everyone. Moreover, the situation here, even compared to the 90s of the last century, has worsened. At that time, at least, certain analytical and expert groups on foreign policy were created under the Presidential Administration, and even presidential councils on international activities. Now this is not the case at all. There is no strategic planning either.

The situation has worsened compared to the 90s in the sense that the level of transparency in foreign policy decision-making has dropped sharply. We will not dwell on this in detail, but this is a well-known fact that is striking to everyone, including our foreign partners. In general, we also do not see regular work with the media.

Now, in terms of state discipline in implementing foreign policy decisions, the state of affairs is probably better than in the 90s of the last century. But there are blatant examples of uncoordinated foreign policy that already relate to the new presidential cycle, and which are likely to be included precisely in this capacity - as classic examples of uncoordinated foreign policy - in the textbooks of world diplomacy.

Two of them occurred at the end of 2003. The first is our maneuvering around Tuzla Island. It is still unclear which agency made the decision to build a dam in the Kerch Strait. One can assume, of course, that this, so to speak, squatter construction was started by the governor of the Krasnodar Territory. Moreover, we saw him constantly: he did not get out of the TV then. But many say that he could not act on his own, and there was some kind of “go-ahead” from the Kremlin. But who gave such a “go-ahead” from the Kremlin is still not clear. Against this background, the four-day, at least if not week-long, silence of our Foreign Ministry was symptomatic, which, it must be said frankly, simply did not do its job, did not create a clear legal basis for carrying out strengthening work, not to mention the fact that it simply did not reached an agreement with the Ukrainian side and brought the matter to another crisis in relations with Kiev. At the same time, we all remember how our Ambassador in Kyiv, Viktor Chernomyrdin, stated the need to urgently stop work in the Kerch Strait. Our Prime Minister, then M. Kasyanov, stated the same. Our well-known deputies, on the contrary, demanded the continuation and even intensification of construction and made formidable philippic declarations against the official government. As a result, according to experts and general opinion, Russia, in front of the whole world, completely lost the information war that Kyiv imposed on it.

Foreign and domestic experts were no less bewildered by our attempt at the end of that year to resolve the situation in Transnistria. Let's remember how it was. First, the Deputy Head of the Presidential Administration (D. Kozak), who had nothing to do with international activities, went to Pridnestrovie. He was reported to have allegedly achieved a long-awaited compromise between Chisinau and Tiraspol to resolve the Transnistria problem. He also held negotiations with Kyiv. Kyiv seemed to also agree with this. Against this background, the position of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs was completely incomprehensible. There were no official statements. At the last moment, Moldovan President Voronin - after strict instructions from the OSCE - refused to sign this “compromise agreement”. As a result, the problem of settlement in Transnistria was postponed indefinitely, and the events that we witnessed today were the result of this situation that was not resolved in time and frozen for three years. After the unambiguous results of the referendum in Transnistria last Sunday, when 97.5% of the population voted for independence (read: for joining the Russian Federation), the Kremlin found itself in a very difficult domestic and foreign political situation: it has no legal or moral grounds not to recognize the will of the people, but he doesn’t have the spirit or political strength to take this step. The current political impasse is a consequence of an unprofessional and uncoordinated foreign policy in this area.

Another example is our unclear policy towards South Ossetia, in which, by the way, the next referendum on independence, unpleasant for the Kremlin, is being prepared. Everyone understands only one thing: we have neither a strategy nor a position regarding, say, the South Ossetian (not to mention the Abkhazian) conflict. We cannot even say that essentially we are not even talking about separatism here. The thesis about separatism in South Ossetia is a myth. We are not talking about separatism, but about irresistibility, that is, about the reunification of South Ossetia with its historical homeland. Even Russia has nothing to do with it. The most important thing here is that South Ossetia wants to reunite with North Ossetia. No one can say whether we are now ready (and whether this is being calculated now) for the denunciation of the Dagomys agreements of 1992, as M. Saakashvili constantly repeats. What will we do if such Agreements are indeed denounced? After all, Russian peacekeepers in this case will have the status of occupiers. We will have to withdraw our troops from there. In this case, 80% of South Ossetians who are Russian citizens will find themselves in the position of outcasts, with all the ensuing consequences. They will be deprived of salaries, pensions, social guarantees, and so on. Essentially, this will be Chechnya for Georgia, destabilizing the entire region. We are clearly not ready for this scenario.

The way out of this extremely unfavorable situation, as already mentioned in the fourth chapter, is that a special Law should be adopted on the mechanism for developing, adopting and implementing foreign policy decisions, which should ensure clear coordination of the activities of various foreign policy departments under the leadership of the President. Naturally, in accordance with our Constitution, in accordance with the constitutional powers of the President and with the coordinating role of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In any case, the question of the mechanism for developing, adopting and implementing foreign policy decisions should be part of the national discussion about the new foreign policy doctrine and about foreign policy in general. There is no doubt that if such a discussion begins at the level of the legislative and executive branches and in the expert community, it will only benefit our foreign policy.

© A.I. Kondratov, 2009

UDC 327 BBK 66.4(0)

AND ITS FUNCTIONS

A.I. Kondratov

The article is devoted to the consideration of the system of main categories of foreign policy activities of the state and reveals the main functions of this system. The work offers the author's definitions of the concepts of foreign policy activity of the state, foreign policy influence, support of foreign policy activity, its organization and tactics, and reveals the relationships between them.

Key words and phrases: theory of international relations; category; foreign policy activities of the state; foreign policy influence, support of foreign policy activities; organization of foreign policy activities of the state, tactics of foreign policy activities of the state.

Any phenomenon of the reality around us is known and studied using specific terms and concepts, some of which can be considered as categories. The above fully applies to such a phenomenon as the foreign policy activity of a state, studied within the framework of the theory of international relations. As part of the development of the theory of international relations, researchers are constantly working to improve the existing conceptual apparatus. Many of its constituent terms and concepts are included in a few dictionaries, glossaries and thesauri on political science, foreign policy, international relations and world politics.

As a result of research conducted by S.A. Proskurin, E.A. Pozdnyakov,

M.A. Khrustalev and some other specialists, in the theory of international relations

wearing a certain number of categories. For example: “foreign policy of the state”, “foreign policy doctrine of the state”, “foreign policy course”, “foreign policy action”, “foreign policy strategy”, “foreign policy tactics”, “foreign policy strategy”, “foreign policy activities of the state”.

However, to date, among the many concepts that reveal the foreign policy activities of the state, the key ones have not yet been identified, which can be classified as categories. Known categories are considered in isolation and outside of a grounded theoretical framework. Therefore, within the framework of the theory of international relations, the main elements of the system of main categories of foreign policy activities of the state, which are a scientific tool for understanding this phenomenon, have not yet been revealed.

Taking into account the above, the purpose of this publication is to consider the main categories of foreign policy activities of the state, forming a single theoretical system, and to reveal the functions of this system.

appropriately ensured activities of the state to influence the objects of its foreign policy interests within the framework of the chosen tactics.

Foreign policy influence is a type of foreign policy activity of the state aimed at achieving desired changes for the state in the state of objects of foreign policy interests, the conditions of their functioning or the nature of the actions they perform.

Ensuring the foreign policy activities of the state is a type of foreign policy activity of the state aimed at creating the necessary conditions for the implementation of foreign policy influence in order to implement its foreign policy.

The organization of foreign policy activity of a state is a set of organizational forms for implementing the content of foreign policy activity, reflecting the orderly structure of all parts of the apparatus (forces) and their coordinated interaction within the framework of relatively independent parts of the process of foreign policy activity.

The tactics of a state's foreign policy activity is a system of knowledge about the tactical forms of implementing the content of foreign policy activity and their application in the course of foreign policy influence or foreign policy support in order to achieve the strategic foreign policy interests of the state in a specific historical period in the development of international relations.

As follows from the definitions presented: influence and support reflect the substantive side of the state’s foreign policy activity, and organization and tactics determine the organizational and tactical forms of expressing the content of this activity.

Logical operations with categories are carried out within many scientific disciplines. For example, issues of working with categories or their systems were considered by L.E. Balashov, I. Bucur, A. Deleanu, V.B. Kuchevsky, E.V. Lukyanova, A.P. Sheptulin and a number of other authors.

Meanwhile, today there is no unified approach to defining the actual concept of “category”. The following definitions can be cited in support. According to one of them, a category is understood as “the most general and fundamental concept that reflects the essential properties and relationships of any phenomenon of reality or process.”

From the point of view of L.E. Balashova, “Categories are structural elements of thought that appear in philosophical literature under the name of philosophical categories-concepts. In the real world, as a rule, they correspond to forms of being, definitions of the world - matter, movement, space, time, quality, quantity, finite, infinite, reality, possibility, etc.” .

Taking into account the above, the categories are considered by the author as generalizing and fundamental concepts that occupy a defining, main position in the hierarchy of concepts and terms that reflect the most significant connections and relationships of such a phenomenon as the foreign policy activities of the state.

Each category of foreign policy activity of the state, as an auxiliary or main element of the system, corresponds to an independent set of knowledge. Categories are interconnected within the framework of this system, which makes it possible to study their properties, expressed in the essential features inherent in concepts, and also to determine the role and place of each of them in the general system of categories. The role of an element is determined through the functions assigned to it, and its place is determined by comparison with other elements.

Since the theoretical foundations of the study of foreign policy activities

states as a whole represent a level structure (philosophy and dialectics - a general theoretical basis; the theory of international relations - a general theoretical basis; some other theories - a special theoretical basis), then several levels of categories can be distinguished with the help of which the foreign policy activities of a state can be considered.

The first level consists of philosophical categories that can be summarized into a system, which represent the basis for defining systems of categories of other scientific disciplines.

The second level is represented by a system of categories formed within the framework of the theory of international relations.

The third level includes several systems of “policy” categories (state foreign policy, world politics and geopolitics).

At the fourth level, it is logical to consider systems of categories of a certain set of scientific disciplines that contribute to the knowledge of the phenomenon under study.

As a result, the system of categories of the state’s foreign policy activities should be classified as the fifth level of the general hierarchy of category systems.

The system of basic categories of state foreign policy activity itself consists of two subsystems. The first should include such categories as: needs, interests, goals and objectives of the state’s foreign policy activity, subject, object of the state’s foreign policy activity, forms, methods, forces and means, result. The named categories, with their inherent sets and subsets of terms and concepts, primarily reflect the general structure of the foreign policy activities of the state, which we conventionally call “vertical”. All of them are an integral part of a single set, understood as a superset of terms and concepts, through which it is possible to consider the foreign policy activities of the state as a whole.

However, the main elements of the superset of terms and concepts about the foreign policy activities of the state, according to the author, are four main

subsets reflecting the “horizontal” structure of this activity. In this system, the key concepts are, respectively, foreign policy influence (impact for short), ensuring the foreign policy activities of the state (abbreviated support), organizing the foreign policy activities of the state (organization) and tactics of the foreign policy activities of the state (tactics).

It is thanks to the use of these categories that a comprehensive consideration of the foreign policy activities of the state as a whole becomes possible.

The special status in the system of sets of concepts allows us to classify influence, organization, support and tactics as the main categories of foreign policy activities of the state. Together they form a single subsystem, a system of categories of foreign policy activities of the state.

If the attribution of categories (subsystems) of the “vertical level” to the general system of categories of foreign policy activities of the state does not require additional comments, then to prove the functionality of the subsystem of categories of the “horizontal level” we will consider the role and place of each of its elements, determine the nature of the relationships between them and evaluate the system for compliance with the general requirements for systems.

Let us first note that this system consists of many structural elements (four main categories) that are interconnected and interact, performing their cognitive (explanatory) functions in a specific field of knowledge.

The main evidence of the functioning of the system under consideration are the following provisions:

Firstly, the fact of the presence and functioning of connections through interaction between the named categories, each of which represents an independent element of the system, reflecting one of four sets of terms and concepts.

Secondly, if necessary, the subordination of all these elements to a single goal - to reveal the essence of the state’s foreign policy activity, its content and forms of external expression of this content.

Each of the elements in integral unity carries a certain load, ensuring the orderly functioning of the system.

Impact determines what the state does to achieve the realization of its foreign policy interests, but without appropriate support this activity cannot be carried out. Organization and tactics are the external expression of the foreign policy activity of the state in general and its main part - influence in particular. Therefore, in order to have an impact and obtain the intended result, it must be appropriately provided, organized and selected, and only then specific forms and methods of activity must be applied in a certain way, which determines the presence of tactics. Therefore, the absence of even one of the named elements does not give the right to talk specifically about the foreign policy activities of the state. On the other hand, in this system of categories there is a sufficient number of necessary elements, which does not allow the inclusion of any other elements in this system. Otherwise it will not be a system.

All this indicates the integrity and closedness of the system.

Thirdly, the hierarchical structure of these categories, the presence of three of them at the base of the system (support, organization and tactics) and at the top - the fourth category (impact), indicates the subordination of the former to the latter.

Fourthly, different combinations of the content of the elements of the system (mentally represented as the faces of an irregular tetrahedron) allow us to say that this system is able to adequately reflect the impact of a complex of external and internal factors on its functioning. This provision makes it possible for the system to respond to external and internal

impacts, as well as its ability to resist these impacts.

According to the correct conclusion of V.B. Kuchevsky, “The role of categories in cognition is determined by their place in the process of reflecting the external world, the originality of their objective content and logical form and is revealed in ideological, methodological and logical functions.” The above also applies to the categories of foreign policy activities of the state considered within the framework of the theory of international relations.

The worldview function, determined by the nature of the categories, is expressed in the fact that they form the theoretical basis for understanding the foreign policy activities of the state, aimed at satisfying its needs, recognized as interests. The categories of foreign policy activities of the state brought into a system make it possible to organize the existing knowledge about this phenomenon and, as a result of logical methods of cognition, to present it as a single whole. Therefore, without them, it is impossible to correctly organize the information (information, data) obtained in the course of the practical activities of participants in international relations into a single complex.

In addition, the ideological function of the identified categories is also manifested in the fact that they are the basis for understanding numerous processes occurring in the sphere of international relations through the prism of the foreign policy activities of the state. Therefore, they contribute to the consideration and correct interpretation of the phenomena that constitute the interaction between states regarding the implementation of their interests. The consequence of this is the acquisition of new knowledge about this part of the objective reality of existence.

The methodological function of the categories of foreign policy activities of the state, considered both individually and within the framework of the systems that include them, is expressed in the fact that they are methodological tools for determining the truth when considering phenomena occurring in the sphere of international relations. They help identify new practical and scientific problems related to

provision, organization and tactics of foreign policy activities of the state and other actors in international relations. Similar opportunities for solving similar problems using the categories of foreign policy activities of the state appear in related scientific disciplines (geopolitics, world politics, foreign policy and others). Consideration of categories as a methodological basis, starting point or beginning of scientific research allows us to build the correct logic of its conduct, which contributes to obtaining, through the use of logical operations and the methodological approach developed in this work, new scientific research results for theory and practice.

The revealed relationships between the categories of foreign policy influence, support, organization and tactics of the state’s foreign policy activities can also be used to consider the activities of any other subject of international relations. The foregoing also means that the system of these categories can be used to consider the activities of the subject (state) as a whole. In other words, these categories allow us to consider the activity of a subject, directed not only externally, but also internally of any subject. It is not necessary that the subject acts within the framework of international relations. Since there is the possibility of application within other scientific disciplines, from a methodological point of view, the named categories considered within the framework of the system can claim universality.

The logical function of the identified categories of foreign policy activity of the state is expressed in the fact that each of them separately, or considered as their system, can act as a beginning for carrying out logical operations of understanding other phenomena of the foreign policy activity of the state - in particular, or the activity of any other subject of international relations generally. The basis for the intended judgments using these categories should be the above-presented cause-and-effect relationships between this category and

mi. Consistent consideration of this connection determines the logic of scientific thinking and knowledge, through consistent reflection in the mind of the researcher through categories and related concepts of occurring phenomena of part of the reality of existence.

At the same time, the manifestation of the functions of each of the named categories individually or in a system depends on the conditions and purposes of using the named categories in specific knowledge systems and is determined by the relationship between the selected system of categories on the one hand, and another theoretical system higher or lower in the theoretical hierarchy.

In conclusion, we note that the approach proposed and substantiated by the author to the consideration of the foreign policy influence, support, organization and tactics of the foreign policy activities of the state as elements of a theoretical system is the first attempt to study this activity at the level of categories of the theory of international relations. The presence of such a scientific tool as a system of categories of foreign policy activities of the state allows us to begin to create a theoretical model of this activity, necessary not only for the further development of the theory of international relations, but also of political science in general.

REFERENCES

1. Bucur, I., Deleanu, A. Introduction to the theory of categories and functors / Preface by Peter Hilton. Per. from English YES. Raikov and V.S. Retaha. - M., Publishing House "Mir", 1972. - 129 p.

2. Diplomatic Dictionary / Ed. A.A. Gromyko, A.G. Kovaleva, P.P. Sevostyanova, S.L. Tikhvinsky / In 3 volumes. - M., Publishing house "Science", 1984. - T. 1. - A-I. - 423 p.

3. Diplomatic Dictionary / Ed. A.A. Gromyko, A.G. Kovaleva, P.P. Sevostyanova, S.L. Tikhvinsky / In 3 volumes. - M., Publishing house "Science", 1986. - T. 2. - K-R. - 503 s.

4. Diplomatic Dictionary / Ed. A.A. Gromyko, A.G. Kovaleva, P.P. Sevostyanova, S.L. Tikhvinsky / In 3 volumes. - M., Publishing house "Science", 1986. - T. 3. - S-Ya. - 751 p.

5. Kartashev, V.A. System of systems. Essays on general theory and methodology. - M.: Progress Academy, 1995. - 325 p.

6. Categories of political science: Textbook. -M.: Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University); “Russian Political Encyclopedia” (ROSSPEN), 2002. - 656 p.

8. Kuchevsky, V.B. The nature of philosophical categories // Categories. Philosophical magazine, 1998. - No. 1.

9. Lebedeva, M.M. World politics: Textbook for universities / M.M. Lebedeva. - M.: Aspect Press, 2004. - 351 p.

10. Lukyanova, E.V. Theory and practice of constructing and applying philosophical categories. A critical view of a social scientist // Representative power of the XXI century: legislation, comments, problems. - Access mode: http://pvlast.ru/archive/index.366.php.

11. World politics and international relations: key words and concepts / under general. ed. MM. Lebedeva, S.V. Ustinkina; MGIMO (U) Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation; Nizhny Novgorod State University named after N.I. Lobachevsky. - M.; N. Novgorod, 2000. - 207 p.

12. Obolonsky, A.V., Rudashevsky, V.D. Methodology for systematic research of government problems

state administration / Obolonsky A.V., Rudashevsky V.D.; Rep. ed.: Tumanov G.A. - M.: Nauka, 1978. - 191 p.

13. Ozhegov, S.I., Shvedova, N.Yu. Explanatory dictionary of the Russian language: 80,000 words and phraseological expressions / Russian Academy of Sciences. Institute of Russian Language named after. V.V. Vinogradova. 4th ed., expanded. - M.: Azbukovnik, 1999. - 944 p.

14. Proskurin, S.A. Foreign policy and foreign policy activities of the state / In the book. International relations and foreign policy activities of Russia / Ed. ed. S. A. Proskurina. - M.: Moscow Psychological and Social Institute, 2004. - 592 p.

15. Dictionary of international law / Batsanov S.B., Efimov G.K., Kuznetsov V.I. and others / 2nd ed., revised. and additional - M.: International. relations, 1986. -432 p.

16. Soloviev, A.I. Political science: Political theory, political technologies: Textbook for university students. - M.: Aspect Press, 2000. - 559 p.

17. Philosophical encyclopedic dictionary. - M.: INFRA-M, 2000. - 576 p.

THE SYSTEM OF STATE MAIN CATEGORIES OF FOREIGN POLICY ACTIVITY

AND ITS FUNCTIONS

The article considers the system of the state main categories of foreign policy activity and reveals its main functions. The author defines such categories as foreign policy activity of the state, foreign policy activity impact, foreign policy activity guarantee, its organization and tactics, reveals correlation between them.

Key words: theory of international relations; category; foreign policy activity of the state; foreign policy activity impact; foreign policy activity guarantee; organization of foreign policy activity of the state; tactics of foreign policy activity.

In the summer of 2015, the influx of immigrants into the European Union increased like never before. In this regard, EU countries are faced with the question of the need to maintain a unified development strategy. Supporters of Euroscepticism and a radical fight against the increase in the number of refugees are gaining increasing political influence. Thus, in Poland, the conservative Law and Justice party bypassed the ruling Civic Platform. The results of recent parliamentary elections in Portugal and Croatia also show that the importance of national identification has increased for European citizens. Against this background, when assessing the role of Brussels in the issue of migration, some experts point to the latter’s direct involvement in the current situation due to several major miscalculations.

Among the most significant mistakes is the decision to end the arms embargo on the Syrian opposition in May 2013

Supplying the Free Syrian Army with European military equipment allowed the opposition to create a stable internal structure, achieving first parity and then superiority in quantitative and qualitative terms. The escalation of the conflict led to the fact that the Islamic State came to its fertile land - ravaged by a protracted war and overflowing with freely available weapons. Nothing could stop the terrorists from occupying vast areas of Syria and Iraq, devastated by fighting (reminiscent of the Taliban's occupation of Afghanistan without a fight in the 1990s). In turn, this pushed the indigenous population to look for safer habitats - in Turkey and European countries.

Another significant miscalculation is that today the European Union does not have effective levers to reduce the flow of refugees

It is important to note that in Brussels there is currently no clear distinction between those fleeing war and economic refugees. This suggests that the arrival of new migrants is currently uncontrolled; At the same time, European politicians are reporting on more and more new quotas, the latest of which involves the creation of an additional 100,000 places to receive refugees.

Here it is worth recalling one of the economic principles that states that among the factors influencing the amount of demand, subjective expectations for the next time period are quite serious. By analogy, as the volume of proposed quotas increases, refugees' expectations of inclusion also tend to increase. It follows that any announcement about new places for asylum seekers is disastrous due to the absence or ineffectiveness of mechanisms for stabilizing and limiting flows, since this process can lead to an unregulated increase in maintenance costs and, as a result, destruction of the EU economy.

Finally, Brussels is accused of pursuing its own goals without taking into account the final consequences

First of all, the European Union was counting on a gradual decrease in gas supplies from Russia in favor of more profitable offers from Qatar and Saudi Arabia. At the same time, there was the influence of the United States, which pursued a policy of intervention around the world and had its own interests in Syria. States that do not agree with this course or wish to maintain neutrality did not pay due attention to the potential threat, without taking into account possible risks, and again in accordance with local tasks. For example, Germany, which has a dominant economic and political position in the region, preferred a neutral position from the very beginning of the conflict. This is explained by two reasons, namely the struggle for the electorate of Chancellor Merkel’s Christian Democratic Party and the confrontation between the Alternative for Germany party, which is gaining popularity and represents Eurosceptic parties.

In general, it must be emphasized that the united European states face the prospect of a complete loss of control over the situation both in the Middle East and directly within their borders. The possibility of restoring balance is becoming less and less realistic, since if the moderate opposition is at least ready to sit down at the negotiating table, then ISIS will require a different method of resolving the conflict. This means that only the end of the war in Syria will reduce immigration to Europe. It remains to express the hope that European politicians will not allow a critical situation to arise by choosing the correct solution for this problem.

USSR. In 1985, E. Shevardnadze became the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR. He was the implementer of the policy of reconciliation with the countries of Western Europe and the USA. The new foreign policy course was called “new political thinking.”

It was characterized by several main principles:

• the priority of universal human values ​​over class values;
• refusal to split the world into two warring political camps;
• refusal to resolve international disputes by force;
• ideas of struggle in the name of “world revolution” were excluded;
• direction of policies of all countries of the world to solve environmental, health, and nutrition problems.

M. Gorbachev tried to reconcile with the West in order to reduce the country's military spending. He became the author of a number of disarmament initiatives. Relations between the USSR and the USA improved significantly. During 1985 – 1991. Several meetings between the leaders of both countries took place. As a result, agreements were reached on the elimination of Soviet and American medium- and short-range missiles in Europe, the introduction of a moratorium on nuclear weapons testing, the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan, the German Democratic Republic and the non-interference of the USSR in the process of German unification. Such measures made it possible to significantly reduce military spending. They found support among the world community.

Finished works on a similar topic

• Coursework 470 rub.
• Abstract Foreign policy of the USSR in 1980-1990. 240 rub.
• Test Foreign policy of the USSR in 1980-1990. 190 rub.

A negative consequence of foreign policy agreements was a decrease in funding for the defense industry, which led to a reduction in production at a number of factories and an increase in unemployment. Part of the party leadership regarded M. Gorbachev’s actions as a betrayal of Lenin’s ideas.

Relations with countries of "people's democracy"

Significant changes also took place in the relations of the USSR with the countries of “people's democracy”. In Central-Eastern Europe in the second half of the 1980s. democratization processes intensified. Despite attempts by the communist leadership of individual countries to enlist the support of the USSR in suppressing opposition speeches, M. Gorbachev declared non-interference in the internal affairs of the states of the Warsaw Treaty Organization. The new foreign policy course of the USSR was received with criticism by the leaders of the GDR, Romania and Poland.

During 1988 – 1989 in the countries of Central-Eastern Europe there was a change in leadership, and subsequently in the socio-political system. In 1990, the GDR and West Germany united to form a single Germany. In the spring of 1991, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance and the Warsaw Pact Organization ceased their activities. Soviet troops were withdrawn from the countries of the former “people's democracy”. As a result, the level of economic and political cooperation between the USSR and the countries of Central and Eastern Europe sharply decreased.

At the same time, the normalization of relations between the Soviet Union and the countries of South and Southeast Asia took place. The withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan and Mongolia contributed to the establishment of cooperation between the USSR and China. Relations with South Korea, Israel, and Vietnam have improved.

Note 1

During 1990 – 1991 The leadership of the USSR adopted a number of laws in accordance with international law to protect human rights and freedoms. The symbol of the new foreign policy of the Soviet Union was non-interference in local conflicts, in particular in the Gulf War.

Rejection of past conquests in Europe and the world

In July 1990, during a meeting between Gorbachev and Kohl in Moscow and later in the Caucasus, the issue of membership of a united Germany in NATO was finally resolved. A month later, Gorbachev was telling US President Bush what this concession cost him, and how little understanding he found from his compatriots.

Thus, Gorbachev's group abandoned the western outpost of the Soviet empire, the construction of which his predecessors considered the most important result of World War II. Gorbachev came to this essentially revolutionary decision because the tension in East-West relations, not least thanks to Gorbachev’s “new thinking,” had significantly decreased.

In both the East and the West, the sense of threat from the “class enemy” began to gradually disappear. There was also a normalization in relations between the two superpowers after the USSR and the USA signed an agreement on the elimination of medium-range missiles (from 500 to 5,500 km). In May 1988, the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan began, ending in February 1989. Only in this new atmosphere was it possible to overcome the split between Germany and Europe. On June 28, 1991, the Moscow-controlled Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA), created in 1949, was dissolved, and a few days later, the Warsaw Pact was dissolved.

Note 2

The abandonment of Soviet hegemony in Eastern Europe and the reunification of Germany were perceived by many critics of perestroika as a betrayal of the interests of the Soviet Union.

In vain did the proponents of perestroika try to convince their conservative opponents that the new political course was in the interests of the country. For example, in December 1990, Shevardnadze declared that the Soviet Union had now become a full member of the civilized community of peoples. In his opinion, the external threat to the country that existed for decades has disappeared, and no states will try to use the internal difficulties of the USSR to achieve their own benefit. 

To begin with, let’s read the requirements for criterion K3 again.

According to this criterion it is necessary:
“correctly indicate two cause-and-effect relationships characterizing the causes of events/phenomena/processes that occurred during a given period.”

So, it is necessary to indicate two PSS, and not just any, but precisely those that characterize the reasons (!) for the occurrence of events of a given period.

What exactly is meant by cause and effect?

PSS - connection between historical events (processes, phenomena), in which one event(process, phenomenon), called cause, in the presence of certain historical conditions generates another event(process, phenomenon), called a consequence.

Thus, Unified State Exam experts want to see in the essay how the graduate can show the CONNECTION between two historical events. Communication between cause event And event-consequence.

At the same time, the event consequence should be exactly within the period on which the essay is written. The consequence event should not be beyond the upper limit or lower limit of the period; it must relate specifically to this (!) period.

For an event (phenomenon, process) that occurred within a given period, it is necessary to select those events (phenomena, processes) from the past that served as its cause .

What are the requirements for a cause event?

1) The cause event may be located both within the period and beyond the lower limit. It is impossible to go beyond the upper limit of the period: after all, causes can only be in the past, but not in the future.

Example “within the period”:
The ill-conceived tax policy of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich's associates became one of the reasons for the Salt Riot.

Example "beyond the lower limit":
Publication of Peter's decreeI about succession to the throne was one of the reasons for the beginning of the era of palace coups.

2) When specifying PSS, not only reasons, but also preconditions events, processes, phenomena.
Premise- this is the condition that influenced the beginning of this event.

For example:
Influence of Enlightenment ideas was not a direct cause Decembrist uprising on Senate Square, but it appeared prerequisite.

Period: 945 - 972

1) Olga's baptism ( this is the reason) and strengthening ties between Russia and Byzantium ( this is a consequence).
2) The approach of Russia to the Byzantine borders ( this is the reason) and the beginning of the Russian-Byzantine war ( this is a consequence).

“Being a wise and far-sighted ruler, Olga decides to accept the religion of the Byzantine Empire - Christianity. In 957, Olga was baptized in Constantinople. The Byzantine emperor became her godfather. This step contributed to the strengthening of international ties between Rus' and Byzantium: both political and economic.

During these same years, a lightning war with Bulgaria took place, ending in the victory of the Russian prince. As a result of the war, Rus' received new lands, but the presence of the warlike Svyatoslav near the borders of Byzantium did not suit the Byzantine emperor. In connection with this, the Russian-Byzantine war began in 970.”

Period: September 1689 - December 1725

The excerpt from the essay contains the following PSS:
1) Northern War ( this is the reason) and the introduction of conscription ( this is a consequence).
2) Working conditions for builders in St. Petersburg ( this is the reason) and high worker mortality ( this is a consequence).

“To strengthen himself in the conquered territory, the Russian ruler in 1703 founded the city, which is now called St. Petersburg. Construction began with the founding of a fortress on Hare Island, but the city itself was built with a high mortality rate among workers. This is due to the “slavish” attitude towards the builders, who worked in a difficult climatic region with hours of work that were “unbearable” for an ordinary person.

During the war, the government needed money and service people. The issue with serving people was resolved by universal conscription, which provided the war with troops and increased it several times.”

Period: October 1894 - July 1914

The excerpt from the essay contains the following PSS:
1) Russian penetration into Manchuria ( this is the reason) and the beginning of the Russo-Japanese War (this is a consequence).
2) Rent of Port Arthur ( this is the reason) and the beginning of the Russo-Japanese War ( this is a consequence).
3) Defeat of Russia in the Russo-Japanese War ( this is the reason) and the loss by Russia of the southern part of Sakhalin ( this is a consequence).

“In 1904-1905. there was the Russo-Japanese War. The reasons for this war were that the Russian railway went through China, and that our country leased Port Arthur to create a fleet there. Japan didn't like this. We lost this war. Construction of the railway began on our territory, we lost the southern part of Sakhalin.”

The excerpt from the essay contains the following PSS:
1) Kosygin reform ( this is the reason.) and an increase in the material interest of workers, etc. ( this is a consequence).
2) Foreign policy pursued by A.A. Gromyko ( this is the reason) and the beginning of a course towards peaceful coexistence ( this is a consequence).

“A. Kosygin was entrusted with developing a reform project and implementing it<...> The consequence of the reform was an increase in the material interest of workers, an increase in economic indicators, and the construction of new factories. However, then there was a decline in indicators, and the reform was curtailed.

As for foreign policy, this period is characterized by the so-called “détente” in international relations. The most important figure in the conduct of foreign policy of the USSR was Foreign Minister Gromyko<...> The consequence of his foreign policy can be called the beginning of a course towards peaceful coexistence with capitalist countries.”

Period: October 1964 - March 1985

The excerpt from the essay contains the following PSS:
1) Entry of Soviet troops into Afghanistan ( this is the reason) and the boycott of the 1980 Olympic Games by Western countries (this is a consequence)

“In 1980, the USSR hosted the Summer Olympic Games. Many Western countries did not come to the Games. They boycotted them because of the entry of Soviet troops into Afghanistan in 1979.”

General conclusion

To get two points for K3, you must indicate in the text at least twice that “a certain event (phenomenon, process) of a given period occurred because...”

At the same time, it is not necessary to name any historical figures, list their specific actions, etc.

You may have several separate connectives in your essay:

• "Event №1
• "Event №2 + personality + specific actions” - for K-1 and K-2
• "Event №3
• "Event №4 + its reasons/prerequisites” - for K-3

Please note that you can write Notonly about events but also about historical phenomena and processes.

For example, in the examples above it is said that process as “strengthening ties between Russia and Byzantium” and about such phenomenon as “the high mortality rate of workers during the construction of St. Petersburg”.

Subscribe and follow the release of new publications in my VKontakte community “History of the Unified State Exam and the cat Stepan”