Libmonster ID: UZ-1527
Author(s) of the publication: G. A. Vorontsov

TO THE 60TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE" BAND OF RECOGNITION " OF THE USSR BY CAPITALIST STATES

1924 went down in the history of the USSR's foreign policy and international relations as the year when the Soviet Union was recognized by bourgeois countries. Despite all their efforts, the imperialist states failed to keep the Country of Soviets in a state of diplomatic isolation, to impose on it bonded conditions that infringe on its state interests. In 1924-1925, the USSR established diplomatic relations with 13 states located on different continents, concluded a number of trade agreements and concessions. Thanks to the normalization of relations with many capitalist countries, the Soviet Union's position was strengthened and its international influence increased.

In the light of the experience of the first years of the Soviet state's existence in a capitalist environment, the current attempts of international imperialism to create "sanitary cordons", impose sanctions, and launch a new "crusade" against socialism seem anachronistic. Such attempts are particularly dangerous today, when there is a situation that has no precedent in history: nuclear weapons created by man can not only cause colossal destruction, kill and maim tens and hundreds of millions of people, but also destroy their creator - man as a biological species, making the very environment of his habitat completely unusable for life. The growing concern for the fate of humanity is well-founded, as the development of world events is becoming increasingly dangerous. The fruits of significant progress in improving international relations, which were characteristic of the 1970s, are under threat. The discharge trend has suffered significant damage. The United States is making persistent attempts to block the normal development of mutually beneficial cooperation, economic and political ties between states.

The strategy of direct confrontation adopted by the Reagan administration, the desire of the United States and NATO to break the existing balance of power, to return to various policy options from a position of strength, are more or less studied in a number of works on international relations and foreign policy. In Soviet literature, the power aspects of imperialist politics are reflected in a two-volume book on US foreign policy, in monographs and articles by a number of researchers .1 There is a very diverse and numerous Western literature on

1 See, for example, Modern US Foreign Policy. Vols. 1-2. M. 1984; Khalosha B. M. Voenno-politicheskie soyuzy imperializma. M. 1982; Arbatov G., Oltmans O. Coming in the 80's ... M. 1983.; Melnikov Yu. M. Sila i besilie:

page 3

this issue 2 . This article examines the imperialist policy from a position of strength in relation to the USSR, which failed in the 1920s and even more so failed in the 80s.

The 60th anniversary of the "band of recognition" of the Soviet Union by capitalist states provides a lot of food for thought for historians and diplomats, journalists and politicians. If we take a retrospective look at the past years, we can understand with new depth and strength the significance of the events that took place at that time in the international arena. The Great October Socialist Revolution, the breakthrough of Soviet Russia from a state of backwardness far ahead on the path of social progress, dramatically changed the situation in the world. The first country of socialism established itself on the international stage in the midst of civil war and under the guns of the interventionists. Imperialism, because of its class nature, not only did not accept the social structure and ideology that was hostile to it, but it did its best to destroy it.

The "crusades" against Soviet Russia began, in which many capitalist powers took part. The young Soviet Republic, which had not yet created a new economic system and was struggling with internal counter-revolution and a class enemy, had to endure the heavy blows of imperialist intervention, attempts to create a "cordon sanitaire", and diplomatic isolation. The collapse of attempts to destroy the Soviet state by force, the economic upsurge in the country and the growth of its international influence, the defeat of internal counter - revolutionary forces, and the interest of Western business circles in developing economic ties all contributed, as Lenin noted, to the fact that international imperialism "was forced for a time to recognize or semi-recognize" 3 our country.

Having passed through the hard trials of the first years, the Soviet Union emerged from them strong and powerful, confident in itself and in the prospects of the chosen path, which serves as a convincing proof of the correctness of the theory of Marxism-Leninism and the loyalty of the party's course outlined by Lenin. Explaining the origins of the Soviet state's victory over many of its opponents, he noted:: "The experience of world politics has proved that an alliance against Soviet Russia is inevitably doomed to failure, because it is an imperialist alliance, an alliance of predators who are not united, and they do not have a real interest, a strong one that unites them... A ruined, weak, backward Soviet Russia is being defeated by an alliance of states that is incomparably more powerful, because these states have no internal strength, because the workers and labourers are against them, and this is revealed in every crisis. " 4
The foreign policy success associated with the breakthrough of diplomatic isolation convincingly testified to the growth of the international authority of the USSR, that from now on the most dynamic progressive force is operating in the world, embodying a new social formation, a new ideology. The six decades that have passed since then have confirmed the correctness of this conclusion. The radical changes that took place during this time in the international position of the Soviet Soy-

Foreign policy of Washington, Moscow, 1983; Yakovlev A. N. Cancer of imperial ambitions in the nuclear age. - World Economy and International Relations, 1983, N 1; his. From Truman to Reagan. The Doctrine and Reality of the Nuclear Age, Moscow, 1984; et al.

2 См. Churchill W. S. Defending the West. Lnd. 1981; The Military Balance in Europe. Conference Papers 2. Stockholm. 1982; America's Security in the 1980's. Pt. I - II. SIPRI. Lnd. 1982; Schwartz D. N. NATO's Nuclear Dilemmas. Washington. 1983; Rogers V. Sword and Shield... - NATO's Sixteen Nation, February - March 1983, Vol. 28, N 1.

3 Lenin V. I. PSS. Vol. 44, p. 3.

4 Ibid., vol. 41, pp. 342, 356.

page 4

the pros speak for themselves. In the first years after October, the Soviet country was an island in a sea of hostile capitalist encirclement. Now there is a world of socialism. On the side of the USSR are the countries of the socialist community, other revolutionary detachments of our time.

In 1924, socialism accounted for 16% of the world's territory, and now the countries of socialism occupy 26.2% of its territory. The population of the Country of Soviets in 1919 numbered 138 million people - 7.8% of the world's population. Today, 1,480 million people live in the countries of socialism, or 33% of the world's population. The course of history led to the collapse of the colonial system of imperialism. Developing Countries have become a major independent force in international relations. Thus, while in 1919 the six largest imperialist powers, together with their colonies, occupied 44.4% of the world's territory and accounted for 48% of the world's population ,in the 1980s these figures fell to 8.3% and 13%, respectively .5
The economic characteristics are even more impressive. In 1922, the industrial production of the Soviet country accounted for about 1% of the world's industrial production. Now the situation has changed radically. The USSR is the largest industrial power in the world, with advanced technology, scientific and technical personnel that are able to solve the most complex problems. Industrial production in all the socialist countries now accounts for more than 40% of the world's gdp . There are many other indicators of an economic, scientific and technical nature that characterize the success of socialism in comparison with the world of capitalism. 7 Finally, let's compare the military plan indicators for the 20s and early 80s. The Soviet Union was then confronted by the powerful military potential of all the imperialist Powers, technically more advanced than the potential of the young Soviet state. In the 80s, the military-strategic parity between the USSR and the United States, between NATO and the Warsaw Pact Organization (ATS) became a generally recognized fact.

The whole picture of the world has changed radically. The socialist Community is now a powerful bulwark for the progressive development of mankind. Its allies in the struggle against imperialism are the States of Asia, Africa, and Latin America that have freed themselves from colonial dependence, as well as the working class and democratic circles of the West. 60 years of development shows that there is a historical pattern in the world: progress is on the side of the Soviet Union, on the side of real socialism. This is yet another proof of the power and truth of the brilliant foresight of the classics of Marxism-Leninism regarding the transition of humanity from capitalism to socialism.

The foreign policy of the Soviet Union is consistently peaceful and characterized by a stable constructive line aimed at establishing good-neighborly relations with other countries. The Leninist principle of peaceful coexistence that underlies it has never been a declaration. It was a real guide to the actions of Soviet diplomacy throughout the entire period of our state's existence. "We suffered our revolution, defended it, built socialism - and now we are implementing gigantic plans for the development of the country and further improving the life of the people," said the General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR

5 Narodnoe khozyaistvo SSSR 1922 - 1982. Moscow, 1982, pp. 89-98.

6 Ibid.

7 See for more details: National Economy of the USSR in 1982 Stat. Yearbook, Moscow, 1983; USSR in figures in 1982. Brief statistical Collection, Moscow, 1983.

page 5

K. U. Chernenko. - We do not impose our worldview and social system on anyone. And we don't need foreign lands. The Soviet Union sincerely offers only one path - the path of peaceful coexistence, the path of mutually beneficial international cooperation. " 8
The capitalist countries were by no means disposed to establish equal and peaceful relations with the Country of the Soviets. Power-based approaches to international relations are inherent in imperialism. Their sharp edge was directed primarily against the Soviet Union. At the same time, imperialism used various methods and means - from supporting counter-revolutionary groups inside our country to open provocations, from diplomatic ultimatums to direct interventionist actions. The diplomatic recognition of the USSR did not mean that imperialism gave up trying to solve its foreign policy problems from a position of strength. And subsequently, the Soviet state suffered many trials, the most severe of which was the Great Patriotic War, when Nazi Germany and its allies tried to overthrow socialism by force of arms. However, this attempt also failed.

The entire period of post-war development convincingly demonstrated the growing power and influence of the USSR and other socialist countries. In contrast to this, the tendency to deepen the crisis of modern imperialism has clearly manifested itself. The system of imperialist domination was shaken to its foundations, and the once indisputably dominant positions of the capitalist states were sharply restricted, forcing them to adapt to new conditions. Today, the positions of the Soviet Union and the socialist countries are more stable and unshakeable than ever. It can be argued with good reason that if we have been living without war for almost 40 years, it is due to the strength and power of socialism and all peace-loving forces.

Security and stability in Europe and around the world are closely linked to the approximate strategic balance in the world. It is a fundamental achievement of socialism. This is what holds back the aggressive aspirations of imperialism and encourages it to adapt to the new environment .9 Therefore, it is by no means accidental that in their quest for social revenge, aggressive circles of international imperialism give priority to attempts to disrupt the existing military-strategic balance and achieve superiority. Most recently, the emphasis has been placed on the qualitative improvement of weapons in the hope of beating the USSR in the technological competition, economically exhausting it. But such calculations are illusory. Our opponents fail to grasp the true power of socialism, the mobilizing ability to concentrate forces and resources in certain vital areas, the appeal of Marxist-Leninist ideology, the importance of the leading role of the party, and a number of other factors. Economically, politically, ideologically, and militarily, the Soviet Union and the countries of the socialist community have all the necessary resources to prevent imperialism from destroying the existing balance of power.

The situation that developed in the 1980s is fundamentally different from that of the 1920s, although then and now imperialism is ready for adventurous actions, threats and direct use of force. But before the most advanced weapons were planes, artillery, tanks, but now armies are armed with a huge arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, which is quite enough to destroy

8 Pravda, 30. IV. 1984.

9 See Ponomarev B. N. Two Lines in world politics and the problem of limiting nuclear weapons. Problemy mira i sotsializma [Problems of Peace and Socialism], 1983, No. 12, p. 4.

page 6

the entire world civilization. Naturally, the conditions of a nuclear confrontation impose different requirements on the foreign policy of states, primarily in terms of re-evaluating the role of force in foreign policy. The degree of risk and the very possibility of solving the tasks set with the help of military-power methods and means are radically changing. The consequences of a nuclear war are so devastating that military action cannot be considered as a rational tool of foreign policy. This concern has been repeatedly expressed by prominent experts in various fields of human knowledge-physicists, military personnel, doctors ,writers, politicians and journalists. 10
However, "thoughts about the unthinkable" are firmly embedded in the political lexicon of Washington. Ignoring all the dangers, even the risk of self-destruction, the US administration, consistently increasing the arms race, puts forward doctrines and concepts that provide for the permissibility of nuclear war and the possibility of winning it. These include the concepts of "first disarming nuclear strike", "limited nuclear war", "prolonged nuclear conflict" and others. All of them are based on the expectation to win a nuclear war and use nuclear weapons first. But it is clear to any sober-minded person that hopes of winning a nuclear war are foolhardy. If it breaks out, there can be no winners, it will inevitably lead to the death of entire peoples, to colossal destruction and disastrous consequences for civilization and life on earth itself. Military logic based on such calculations inevitably entails extremely dangerous consequences.

However, the United States stubbornly continues to prepare for a nuclear conflict. So, in one of the annual reports of the US Secretary of Defense, K. According to Weinberger, Congress is explicitly told about the need to "restore peace on favorable terms" for the United States through the use of nuclear weapons. This is based on "the lowest possible level of damage to the United States and its allies." 11 A special emphasis in the new US military strategy is placed on the so-called limited nuclear war. It is envisaged primarily in Europe. But it is difficult to count on a limited nuclear conflict even hypothetically. It is impossible to imagine a set of rules for the exchange of nuclear strikes when the vital interests of the country concerned, its very existence, are at stake.

A serious step towards the implementation of the concept of "limited nuclear war" can be considered the deployment of American missiles in Europe. The Soviet assessment of this provocative action is well known: "The military threat increases even more due to the fact that in Western Europe the deployment of American first - strike nuclear missiles aimed at the Soviet Union and other socialist countries continues," K. U. Chernenko pointed out. - In these circumstances, the Soviet Union, together with its allies, is forced to take the necessary retaliatory measures. As we have repeatedly stated, it will not be possible to destroy the military balance of power, to achieve the military superiority of the United States and NATO over the world of socialism. " 12
Despite Washington's official statements about the "indivisibility" of the West's defense, there is no doubt that the Pentagon intends to fight "to the last European", not wanting at the same time to become a hundred years old.-

10 См. The Last Epidemic. Physicians and Scientists on Nuclear War. Chicago. 1981; Y. Chazov, L. Ilyin, A. Guskova. The Danger of Nuclear War. Soviet Physicians Viewpoint. Moscow. 1982.

11 Report of the Secretary of Defense, February 1, 1983, pp. 32, 35 - 36.

12 Pravda, 5.VI. 1984.

page 7

endanger your own territory and population. Here is how a prominent British political figure, D. Healey, viewed NATO's "missile decision" during a parliamentary hearing in October 1983: "The only reason for deploying these missiles in Europe is that they provide the Americans with the opportunity to strike without getting involved in a nuclear war themselves and thereby limiting it to Europe and keep the United States safe. " 13 The Soviet leadership has repeatedly pointed out that such calculations are illusory. Marshal of the Soviet Union D. F. Ustinov, a member of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU and Minister of Defense of the USSR, emphasized this once again in his answers to a TASS correspondent: "A nuclear attack on the USSR and its allies will inevitably lead to an immediate and inevitable retaliatory strike both on the territory where the missiles are located and on the territories from which There should be no doubt about it. " 14
It is not necessary to say in detail that a nuclear war will result in incalculable disasters for a densely populated Europe. Moreover, as noted in the report of the UN Secretary-General " General and complete disarmament. Comprehensive study on nuclear weapons", any use of nuclear weapons in the so-called limited theater of operations would cause enormous damage not only and not even so much to the armed forces of the belligerents, but to the civilian population. According to this document, the use of nuclear weapons in areas with high population densities would lead - all other things being equal - to civilian casualties, 5 to 6 times greater than those among military personnel .15 This assessment is far from the only one made in recent years. So, according to the West German magazine "Stern", the instruction of the US army FM. 101 - 31 provides for the conduct of tactical nuclear war in Central Europe. According to this document, artillery pieces and missiles will deliver tactical nuclear warheads to the target at a distance of 15 to 110 km. Even if they are blown up outside the borders of large cities, about 10 million people will die in Germany. It should be added that even many experts from NATO understand the illusory nature of hopes for any" limitations " of nuclear war. Thus, the Commander-in-Chief of NATO forces in Europe, US General B. Rogers, believes that "any nuclear exchange will lead to a rapid escalation to the level of a general nuclear war." 16
Various options for "nuclear exchanges", which are seriously discussed by American politicians and the military, provide for a certain number of victims, and often numbers of supposedly "acceptable" losses are called. Such " exercises "are far from being" academic " in nature and cause legitimate concern in the broadest circles of the population of various countries, especially in Europe. The concern of the European and world community is quite understandable and fully justified. "American scenarios of limited war in the European theater do not amuse us at all: after all, this is where we live," writes the historian and writer, founder of the movement for European nuclear disarmament, Professor E. Thompson. "And here, of course, we will die in the event of any nuclear exchange, no matter how limited."-

13 Parliamentary Debates (Hansard). House of Commons Official Report. October 31, 1983, Lnd. 1983, p. 638.

14 Pravda, 21. V. 1984.

15 См. General and Complete Disarmament. Comprehensive Study on Nuclear Weapons. Report of the Secretary General. United Nations General Assembly. N. Y. 1980, p. 69.

16 Stern, 12.XI.1981, S. 95; International Herald Tribune, 9.IX.1981.

page 8

"he was not" 17 . One of the indicators of growing concern about the growing nuclear danger can be considered the dial of the symbolic clock depicted on the cover of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists magazine and showing the time remaining until "hour 0". At the beginning of the current 10th anniversary, the hands were switched to 2 minutes. forward and began to show 11 hours. 53 minutes (recall that this time was on the clock during the most difficult period of the "cold war"). A year later, they already showed 11 hours. 56 minutes. On the cover of the issue of the magazine, published in 1984, it is already 11 hours. 57 minutes. Under the clock there is an inscription: "It's time to act before it's too late."

The Soviets have repeatedly stated that starting a nuclear war with the hope of emerging victorious is an act tantamount to suicide. No matter how powerful the attacker is and no matter what method of unleashing a nuclear war he chooses, he will not achieve his goals, because Retribution will follow inevitably. In this regard, it is of fundamental importance to maintain approximate equality in the balance of forces. "And while there is military and political tension, while the nuclear missile danger from the United States and NATO states hangs over our country, we should keep our powder dry, be always on the alert so that the balance of forces does not change in favor of imperialism and we do not",- emphasizes K. U. Chernenko 18 .

Recently, especially as the US election campaign has intensified, many calls for peace have been heard from Washington. However, they are not supported by concrete actions. They are destined to remain nothing more than rhetoric as long as the Reagan administration relies on achieving superiority through unprecedented efforts to unleash an" arms race in all spheres and areas. At the same time, the main emphasis is placed on creating the potential for a "disarming" first nuclear strike based on qualitatively new, more powerful and more accurate strategic offensive weapons systems - MX intercontinental ballistic missiles, Trident-2 submarine-launched ballistic missiles, B-IB and Stelt strategic bombers, cruise missiles long-range missiles 19 . The deployment of American first-strike nuclear missiles, capable of reaching the territory of the Soviet Union in a matter of minutes, has led to a sharp deterioration in the situation.

As historical experience shows, the creation of new nuclear weapons systems, as well as their placement in close proximity to the alleged enemy, are not able to provide superiority for a long time and to a decisive extent. The development of the strategic situation after the Second World War convincingly shows that action gives rise to counteraction. A kind of vicious circle is being created, and the confrontation is rising to an ever higher level. The result of this development is a destabilization of the situation in the world, both militarily and politically, and an increase in the threat of military conflicts. Even a number of prominent US military specialists, who were more or less involved in the development of Washington's strategic plans in the past, consider the adventurous concepts of the Reagan administration unrealistic. Recently, they have been criticized by former US Defense ministers. McNamara and G. Brown, a prominent diplomat and politician, J. R. R. Tolkien. Former Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff M. Taylor and D. Jones, and others. Evaluating tenden-

17 The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January 1981, p. 12.

18 Chernenko K. U. Speech at a meeting with workers of the Moscow metallurgical plant "Sickle and Hammer", Moscow, 1984, p. 20.

19 For more information, see Modernizing US Strategic Offensive Forces. The Administration Program and Alternatives. Washington. 1983.

page 9

Considering the possibilities of the United States, these figures come to the conclusion that from the financial and technical point of view, it is essentially impossible to achieve strategic superiority over the USSR .20 As for the consequences of a nuclear conflict, they are extremely dangerous and unpredictable.

At the same time, the impossibility of breaking military-strategic parity in itself can hardly be a guarantee preventing further aggravation of the situation. Attempts by the United States to gain military superiority, no matter how futile they may seem, cannot but reflect on the international situation. They result in the deployment of large-scale projects for the construction of armed forces and weapons, and an unprecedented increase in military budgets. The US military budget for fiscal year 1985 will be $ 313 billion, and by the end of this decade, Washington's military spending will increase to $ 465 billion a year. All this, combined with the increased military activity of the Pentagon and NATO, creates tension in the world, and encourages the USSR and the Department of Internal Affairs to take similar large-scale measures in order to neutralize the possibility of the United States and its allies acquiring unilateral advantages. Of no small importance is the following circumstance, which cannot be ignored. Attempts to gain strategic superiority, despite their illusory nature, can temporarily destabilize the strategic balance, cause their initiators to have the illusion of superiority and be tempted to put into practice the concepts of "limited" or "prolonged" nuclear war in a crisis situation, which proclaim the "acceptability" of a nuclear conflict despite a number of authoritative international documents, including UN documents. and the "permissibility" of a first nuclear strike.

Such a policy does not promote mutual understanding, but, on the contrary, inflames an atmosphere of distrust and suspicion, which, with the constantly increasing speed of action of weapons, the difficulties of timely taking protective measures are more dangerous than ever. If even in the relatively recent past, state leaders in a situation fraught with a nuclear collision still had a certain amount of time to analyze the situation, now in some cases we can talk about a few minutes to make decisions on which the fate of entire countries and peoples may depend. In addition, practice shows the extremely dangerous nature of possible technical problems or other accidental incidents.

The other side of the matter is related to the fact that in the conditions of international tension created as a result of the militaristic actions of the United States and NATO, the channels of normal interstate communication are disrupted, and the development of natural ties is blocked. The confrontational course of the United States undermines the very principle of negotiations, which is based on resolving disputes in a peaceful way, taking into account the mutual interests of the parties, equality and equal security. The US administration unilaterally interrupted a number of negotiations on disarmament issues, and at the end of 1983 made negotiations on the limitation of nuclear weapons in Europe (OYAVE), as well as negotiations on SALT, pointless and impossible. By spinning up new arms races, inflating conflicts and crises, Washington is making every effort to escalate the confrontation with the USSR and other socialist countries. The creation of a united anti-Soviet front in the West as part of Reagan's "crusade" against socialism is of paramount importance in this regard.

However, adventurous, and sometimes truly frenzied politics

20 See, for example, Brown H. Thinking about National Security. Boulder. 1983.

page 10

The US administration is so dangerous that even its closest NATO allies and friends are increasingly questioning the wisdom of following its course. It is symptomatic that at a time when, according to Washington, Atlantic unity on the main issues of strategy and policy is particularly necessary, these issues have become the focus of discussion. "Today's disputes in NATO are both unprecedented and disturbing, "notes H. Kissinger with concern. 21" Never in 30 years has the public raised the question of the reasons for the existence of NATO so actively and demanded an explanation of some of its steps, " writes retired British Air Marshal Lord Cameron .22
Recently, the US State Department issued an official publication with the pretentious title "Security and arms Control: in search of a more stable world", the authors of which divide the participants in the debate on Western strategy into three groups. The first of them is based on the need to rely primarily on nuclear weapons. The second, fearing the devastating consequences of an atomic conflict, suggests focusing on conventional troops and weapons. Proponents of the third believe that the USSR does not pose a threat to the West at all .23
It is curious that such "confusion and vacillation" are observed precisely at the time when the Atlantic Alliance bears the greatest burden in implementing the power policy of imperialism against the USSR. Even the most loyal partners of the United States from time to time allow themselves certain deviations from the line of Washington. So, in one of the latest issues of the official publication of NATO "NATO Review" published an article by the Minister! Defense of Great Britain by M. Heseltine. Praising the need for an alliance with the United States and loyalty to NATO, he nevertheless notes that "this is not all, It is also necessary to understand that the Soviet Union is experiencing uncertainty in its security," and this uncertainty "cannot be simply dismissed when dealing with a country that over the past two centuries has repeatedly it has been subject to invasions that have claimed many millions of lives. Rhetoric in the spirit of confrontation cannot be considered useful when it concerns genuine, as opposed to artificially fueled for propaganda purposes, anxiety about their own security, which is felt by all the peoples of Eastern Europe." 24
The Soviet Union's concern for its own security is certainly justified, especially at a time when the United States is officially making it a priority to dump socialism on the "dustbin of history" and destroy it as an organized society. However, the USSR considers ensuring its security in the context of international security. K. U. Chernenko's words that "the Soviet Union does not intend to strengthen its security at the expense of others, but wants equal security for all" are extremely important in this regard .25 This formulation of the question is based on the historical experience of many generations of people, on the experience of the last two world wars, which brought incalculable disasters to peoples and States. The search for international security can be fruitful if it is conducted on an equal, voluntary multilateral basis, covering all States, large and small, wherever they are located.

21 Time, March 5, 1984, p. 14,

22 Diminishing the Nuclear Threat. NATO's Defence and New Technology, Foreword by the Lord Cameron. Lnd. 1984, p. 5.

23 Security arid Arms Control: The Search for a More Stable Peace. Washington. 1983, p. 11.

24 NATO Review, March 1984, Vol. 32, N 1, p. 2.

25 Pravda, 3. III. 1984.

page 11

Recent history strongly demonstrates that the security of any one country cannot be ensured at the expense of the security of other countries. An acceptable basis for genuine security is the principles of equality and equal security. The creation of genuine security requires the participation of all interested States and peoples, an appropriate moral, political and psychological climate, and an atmosphere of mutual goodwill. The psychological war waged by the bourgeois mass media against the Soviet Union is seriously hindering the strengthening of security .26
With a certain degree of conditionality, we can talk about the presence of two states of the world. One of them can be described as a respite between wars. There is really no war, but the warring parties are preparing for it. This kind of respite was a pattern of the capitalist formation. They were interrupted by two world wars that claimed millions of lives. The second state of peace, which the USSR is striving for, is the creation of a situation in international relations that prevents the outbreak of wars and provides conditions for peaceful cooperation. It is this state that can optimally guarantee the security of States and peoples. Such peace is achieved not by betting on an arms race and force, but by rejecting politics from a position of strength and attempts at dictate and blackmail, by consolidating peaceful norms of relations between States. Real steps in the field of disarmament, measures to strengthen mutual trust, and broad international and mutually beneficial cooperation in various spheres and fields are necessary here.

It is this approach that underlies the foreign policy of the Soviet state. The USSR and other countries of the socialist community constantly come up with a wide range of constructive proposals. Their goal is to ease tensions, advance the cause of disarmament, and strengthen security and peace on Earth. Speaking at a breakfast in honor of German Foreign Minister G.-D. Genscher, member of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU, First Deputy Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the USSR A. A. Gromyko said: "Of course, it is necessary to build a bridge between East and West, and the more reliable it is, the better. But nuclear missiles are unsuitable support for such a bridge. It does not lead to trust and cooperation, mutual understanding and peace. We propose to strengthen this bridge on a different basis, on the basis of the principles of peaceful coexistence, firm norms of relations, first of all between the nuclear powers, which Konstantin Ustinovich Chernenko spoke about with great force of logic on behalf of our party and the state. " 27
The 60-year history of the development of diplomatic relations between the Soviet Union and the capitalist countries confirms with renewed force the correctness of this concept. The success of our country, the power of the entire socialist community, and the unity of the revolutionary detachments of our time negate the chances of a power policy of imperialism. Historical experience convincingly demonstrates the failure of imperialist policy from a position of strength in relation to the Country of Soviets.

26 An example of such "research" on the USSR is the recently published book by the American political scientist E. Lutvak, who, together with G. Gray and K. Payne, actively supports adventurous plans for nuclear war. In his new book, in the spirit of American propaganda stereotypes, he attributes aggressive intentions, the desire for hegemony, and the readiness to start a war to the USSR (Luttwak E. The Grand Strategy of the Soviet Union. Lnd. 1983).

27 Pravda, 22. V. 1984.

page 12


© biblio.uz

Permanent link to this publication:

https://biblio.uz/m/articles/view/THE-FAILURE-OF-THE-IMPERIALIST-POLICY-FROM-A-POSITION-OF-STRENGTH-IN-RELATION-TO-THE-U-S-S-R

Similar publications: LUzbekistan LWorld Y G


Publisher:

Azamat UsmanovContacts and other materials (articles, photo, files etc)

Author's official page at Libmonster: https://biblio.uz/Usmanov

Find other author's materials at: Libmonster (all the World)GoogleYandex

Permanent link for scientific papers (for citations):

G. A. Vorontsov, THE FAILURE OF THE IMPERIALIST POLICY FROM A POSITION OF STRENGTH IN RELATION TO THE U.S.S.R. // Tashkent: Library of Uzbekistan (BIBLIO.UZ). Updated: 30.01.2025. URL: https://biblio.uz/m/articles/view/THE-FAILURE-OF-THE-IMPERIALIST-POLICY-FROM-A-POSITION-OF-STRENGTH-IN-RELATION-TO-THE-U-S-S-R (date of access: 17.02.2025).

Found source (search robot):


Publication author(s) - G. A. Vorontsov:

G. A. Vorontsov → other publications, search: Libmonster UzbekistanLibmonster WorldGoogleYandex

Comments:



Reviews of professional authors
Order by: 
Per page: 
 
  • There are no comments yet
Related topics
Publisher
Azamat Usmanov
Ташкент, Uzbekistan
66 views rating
30.01.2025 (18 days ago)
0 subscribers
Rating
0 votes
Related Articles
Примеряют золушки?сапоги
Yesterday · From Golem Anzhanov
КАК ДЕСАНТНИКИ С "ТИГРИСОМ" БАНЮ ДЕЛИЛИ
3 days ago · From Golem Anzhanov
Боевая учеба: один выстрел - семь в уме?
3 days ago · From Golem Anzhanov
Тема для прапорщиков. Как предупредить наркоманию?
Catalog: Разное 
6 days ago · From Golem Anzhanov
Тема для прапорщиков. Изучение социально-психологических особенностей военнослужащих и практика их
Catalog: История 
7 days ago · From Golem Anzhanov
О культуре и контркультуре
9 days ago · From Golem Anzhanov
THE WORKING CLASS OF UZBEKISTAN IN THE PERIOD OF DEVELOPED SOCIALISM
Catalog: История 
16 days ago · From Azamat Usmanov
APPLICATION OF QUANTITATIVE METHODS AND COMPUTERS IN HISTORICAL RESEARCH
16 days ago · From Azamat Usmanov
THE RUSSIAN WORKING CLASS FROM ITS BEGINNINGS TO THE BEGINNING OF THE 20TH CENTURY
19 days ago · From Azamat Usmanov
HALF A CENTURY IN THE SERVICE OF PHYSICAL SECURITY OF DOCUMENTS
19 days ago · From Azamat Usmanov

New publications:

Popular with readers:

News from other countries:

BIBLIO.UZ - Digital Library of Uzbekistan

Create your author's collection of articles, books, author's works, biographies, photographic documents, files. Save forever your author's legacy in digital form. Click here to register as an author.
Library Partners

THE FAILURE OF THE IMPERIALIST POLICY FROM A POSITION OF STRENGTH IN RELATION TO THE U.S.S.R.
 

Editorial Contacts
Chat for Authors: UZ LIVE: We are in social networks:

About · News · For Advertisers

Digital Library of Uzbekistan ® All rights reserved.
2020-2025, BIBLIO.UZ is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map)
Keeping the heritage of Uzbekistan


LIBMONSTER NETWORK ONE WORLD - ONE LIBRARY

US-Great Britain Sweden Serbia
Russia Belarus Ukraine Kazakhstan Moldova Tajikistan Estonia Russia-2 Belarus-2

Create and store your author's collection at Libmonster: articles, books, studies. Libmonster will spread your heritage all over the world (through a network of affiliates, partner libraries, search engines, social networks). You will be able to share a link to your profile with colleagues, students, readers and other interested parties, in order to acquaint them with your copyright heritage. Once you register, you have more than 100 tools at your disposal to build your own author collection. It's free: it was, it is, and it always will be.

Download app for Android