Отлично!
Подробнее о работе
Гарантия сервиса Автор24
Уникальность не ниже 50%
Relations between the Russian Federation and NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) began to develop in December 1991 after the founding meeting of the North Atlantic cooperation Council (CCC), which was then renamed the Euro-Atlantic partnership Council (EAPC).
For almost 30 years of cooperation between Russia and NATO, it is worth noting the same model of behavior of the Alliance. NATO, in the event of an internal political crisis in any European country, tries to blame Russia for everything. So it was in Yugoslavia in 1999, so it was in Georgia in 2008, so it was in Ukraine in 2014. The position of NATO to expand its organization along the borders of the Russian Federation for a long time of interaction was not solidary with the Russian side. Trying at all costs to expand its presence in Europe, especially along the borders of Russia, the Alliance continued, continues and apparently will continue to insist that this is just a normal political process aimed at maintaining contacts, and not inciting former post-Soviet countries against Russia.
Scenario number two. Russia's accession to NATO on the terms of the Alliance.
The return of Crimea under the control of Ukraine due to Russia's inability to resist the economic sanctions of the West may force the Russian leadership to reset relations with NATO with the subsequent stage of accession to the Alliance and on their own terms, as a country that has lost the economic and military race. Thus, Gorbachev's scenario with Perestroika 2.0 is likely. and the complete enslavement of Russia by NATO leaders. This already happened in 1985-1991, when the Soviet Union, due to the severe economic crisis, was forced to reconcile with the United States and NATO in order to achieve a relaxation of the sanctions regime and thus rebuild its economy.
Scenario number three. Russia's coexistence with NATO, accompanied by interaction on issues of interest to both sides.
The threat of mass terrorist attacks in the countries of the Alliance and in Russia from the Middle East may force the parties to resume the interrupted relations. That is, full-fledged relations, as it was in the period from 1991 to 2014, may not be due to disagreements over Ukraine and Georgia, but contacts to ensure collective security and neutralize terrorist groups are quite possible.
Of the scenarios I have listed, scenario number three looks the most possible. The terrorist attacks in Brussels and Paris in 2015-2016 forced NATO countries to seriously reconsider their attitude to terrorist cells. The resumption of contacts between Russia and NATO to counter terrorism in 2016 in this way do not look accidental. The parties understand that a complete cessation of relations will not benefit either the Russian Federation or the countries of the Alliance, and in this case only cooperation and coordination between the special services of the West and Russia can prevent these threats in advance. And thus make life in Europe quieter and safer for citizens and foreign tourists coming to it.
The implementation of scenario number one can lead the world to a global catastrophe. Both Russia and NATO do not need this scenario, because both sides in this case risk losing people and countries. The security of the Alliance and Russia will be under great threat.
Scenario number two will not suit Russia, because then the country will cease to play an important role in the United Nations and will simply turn into a colony of the United States. The current authorities and citizens of the Russian Federation remember what ended for the USSR disarmament of the army and "friendship" with the United States-the loss on the world map of the country called "USSR". Therefore, the Russian leadership is likely not to repeat the mistakes of politicians of the late 1980s.
LITERATURE
1. Kalabekov I. G. Russian reforms in figures and facts. (reference book.) – Moscow: RUSAKI, 2007 – 288 p
2. NATO Secretary General justifies turning to Russia / Ino.Ru [Electronic resource]. - 04.12.2008. - Release date: http://www.inosmi.ru/translation/245818.html. Date of last visit to resource: 16.10.2019.
3. Primakov, E. M. Years in big politics / E. M. Primakov-M.: Collection "Top secret", 1999. — 448 PP.
4. Rogozin, D. O. NATO point Ru/ D. Rogozin. — M.: Eksmo: Algoritm, 2009. - 288 p.
5. Session of the North Atlantic Council at the level of defense Ministers. - 2000. — Vol. 48. — Application. D. 8-11.
6. Young people of Estonia/ the Player in the multipolar world [Electronic resource]. - 12.09.1998. – Release date: http://www.moles.ee/98/Sep/12/5-2.html.- Date of last visit to resource 16.10.2019.
Не подошла эта работа?
Закажи новую работу, сделанную по твоим требованиям
Relations between the Russian Federation and NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) began to develop in December 1991 after the founding meeting of the North Atlantic cooperation Council (CCC), which was then renamed the Euro-Atlantic partnership Council (EAPC).
For almost 30 years of cooperation between Russia and NATO, it is worth noting the same model of behavior of the Alliance. NATO, in the event of an internal political crisis in any European country, tries to blame Russia for everything. So it was in Yugoslavia in 1999, so it was in Georgia in 2008, so it was in Ukraine in 2014. The position of NATO to expand its organization along the borders of the Russian Federation for a long time of interaction was not solidary with the Russian side. Trying at all costs to expand its presence in Europe, especially along the borders of Russia, the Alliance continued, continues and apparently will continue to insist that this is just a normal political process aimed at maintaining contacts, and not inciting former post-Soviet countries against Russia.
Scenario number two. Russia's accession to NATO on the terms of the Alliance.
The return of Crimea under the control of Ukraine due to Russia's inability to resist the economic sanctions of the West may force the Russian leadership to reset relations with NATO with the subsequent stage of accession to the Alliance and on their own terms, as a country that has lost the economic and military race. Thus, Gorbachev's scenario with Perestroika 2.0 is likely. and the complete enslavement of Russia by NATO leaders. This already happened in 1985-1991, when the Soviet Union, due to the severe economic crisis, was forced to reconcile with the United States and NATO in order to achieve a relaxation of the sanctions regime and thus rebuild its economy.
Scenario number three. Russia's coexistence with NATO, accompanied by interaction on issues of interest to both sides.
The threat of mass terrorist attacks in the countries of the Alliance and in Russia from the Middle East may force the parties to resume the interrupted relations. That is, full-fledged relations, as it was in the period from 1991 to 2014, may not be due to disagreements over Ukraine and Georgia, but contacts to ensure collective security and neutralize terrorist groups are quite possible.
Of the scenarios I have listed, scenario number three looks the most possible. The terrorist attacks in Brussels and Paris in 2015-2016 forced NATO countries to seriously reconsider their attitude to terrorist cells. The resumption of contacts between Russia and NATO to counter terrorism in 2016 in this way do not look accidental. The parties understand that a complete cessation of relations will not benefit either the Russian Federation or the countries of the Alliance, and in this case only cooperation and coordination between the special services of the West and Russia can prevent these threats in advance. And thus make life in Europe quieter and safer for citizens and foreign tourists coming to it.
The implementation of scenario number one can lead the world to a global catastrophe. Both Russia and NATO do not need this scenario, because both sides in this case risk losing people and countries. The security of the Alliance and Russia will be under great threat.
Scenario number two will not suit Russia, because then the country will cease to play an important role in the United Nations and will simply turn into a colony of the United States. The current authorities and citizens of the Russian Federation remember what ended for the USSR disarmament of the army and "friendship" with the United States-the loss on the world map of the country called "USSR". Therefore, the Russian leadership is likely not to repeat the mistakes of politicians of the late 1980s.
LITERATURE
1. Kalabekov I. G. Russian reforms in figures and facts. (reference book.) – Moscow: RUSAKI, 2007 – 288 p
2. NATO Secretary General justifies turning to Russia / Ino.Ru [Electronic resource]. - 04.12.2008. - Release date: http://www.inosmi.ru/translation/245818.html. Date of last visit to resource: 16.10.2019.
3. Primakov, E. M. Years in big politics / E. M. Primakov-M.: Collection "Top secret", 1999. — 448 PP.
4. Rogozin, D. O. NATO point Ru/ D. Rogozin. — M.: Eksmo: Algoritm, 2009. - 288 p.
5. Session of the North Atlantic Council at the level of defense Ministers. - 2000. — Vol. 48. — Application. D. 8-11.
6. Young people of Estonia/ the Player in the multipolar world [Electronic resource]. - 12.09.1998. – Release date: http://www.moles.ee/98/Sep/12/5-2.html.- Date of last visit to resource 16.10.2019.
Купить эту работу vs Заказать новую | ||
---|---|---|
0 раз | Куплено | Выполняется индивидуально |
Не менее 40%
Исполнитель, загружая работу в «Банк готовых работ» подтверждает, что
уровень оригинальности
работы составляет не менее 40%
|
Уникальность | Выполняется индивидуально |
Сразу в личном кабинете | Доступность | Срок 1—5 дней |
70 ₽ | Цена | от 200 ₽ |
Не подошла эта работа?
В нашей базе 4207 Статей — поможем найти подходящую