Military and military-political blocs are the brainchild of the second half of the 20th century. It was then that blocs of states appeared in world practice, designed for collective defense against external aggression from adversaries.

Military and military-political blocs are the brainchild of the second half of the 20th century. It was then that, for the first time in world practice, blocs of states appeared, designed for collective defense against external aggression from ideological and political opponents. The first such bloc of states was the "aggressive NATO bloc" formed in 1949, as official Soviet propaganda called it. Six years later, on May 14, 1955, the military organization of the Warsaw Pact was formed. All subsequent years up to 1991 were marked by confrontation between these two military organizations.

Excuse me, but why, speaking of military blocs, only these are immediately remembered? Why is 1949 called the year of formation of the first military bloc? What, didn't there exist such organizations before? But what about the Entente, the Triple Alliance, the Anti-Comintern Pact, etc.? All of the above organizations are the result of political agreements. They did not have a single center of control, command, armies of the states included in them, did not have unification in armament, did not have a common military doctrine. All of the above treaties only obligated the countries that signed them to go to war if any of the signatory countries was subjected to external aggression.

Military blocs of the second half of the twentieth century are a new word in the field of military policy. Their existence was due to the confrontation between two worldview systems that began immediately after the end of the Second World War - the Atlanticist-American and the Soviet-imperial. As a result, in 1949, the NATO bloc was formed from the countries that fell into the American sphere of influence as a result of the Second World War. Initially, it included Belgium, Great Britain, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, Canada, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the USA and France, which withdrew from the bloc's military organization in 1961, but retained representation in political bodies. In 1952, Turkey and Greece joined NATO (despite the irreconcilable differences between these countries), in 1955 - Germany, in 1982 - Spain.

This bloc was formed to counter the "Soviet military threat", in order to prevent the expansion of our country's spheres of influence. The main spheres of influence of this bloc were the European theater of operations (theater of operations) and the entire North Atlantic. It was these territories that were supposed to be the main arenas of the upcoming Third World War.

The main striking forces of this bloc were (and still are) the US and British armies; later, they were joined by the German armed forces, the Bundeswehr, revived under American leadership, which became the main strike force of NATO in Europe. Gradually, almost all of "non-Soviet" Europe found itself entangled in a network of NATO military bases. Especially many bases were deployed in Germany and Italy.

Around the same time, in 1951, the ANZUS military bloc was created - a regional military commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand and the United States, designed to coordinate efforts for the collective defense of the Pacific Ocean. This block, unlike NATO, did not have a single command, a single armed forces and a permanent headquarters. At present, this bloc has actually ceased to exist, although it has not been officially disbanded.

In 1954, in order to counter Soviet political expansion into the region of South and Southeast Asia, the SEATO bloc was created, which included Australia, France, New Zealand, Pakistan, the Philippines, Thailand, Great Britain and the United States. However, it did not last long and, having not fulfilled its mission, in 1977, by mutual agreement of the participating countries, ceased to exist.

In 1971, the ANZUK bloc was created - a military-political alliance, a five-party defense agreement for Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia and Singapore, named after the initial letters of the names of the main participants.

The agreement on the formation of this bloc was concluded in the form of a joint communique by the ministers of defense of the participating countries at a meeting in London on April 15-16, 1971 and entered into force on November 1, 1971.

The declared purpose of the Agreement is to protect Malaysia and Singapore from external attack.

By agreement, the united ANZUK Armed Forces were created. The United States considered ANZUK as one of the components of a potential military coalition of all American allies in the event of an aggravation of the situation in the world or in the region.

This bloc was dissolved in 1975.

In response to the aggressive preparations of their “probable adversaries”, on the initiative of the USSR, on May 14, 1955, an agreement was signed on the creation of a military organization of the Warsaw Pact - a military bloc of European countries - political allies of the USSR. It originally included Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, the GDR, Poland, Romania, the USSR, Czechoslovakia, but in 1961 Albania suspended its membership in this organization. As already noted, this block was created in response to the appearance in Europe of strike groups of troops of NATO member countries. The main armed force of the ATS was the Armed Forces of the USSR; the Armed Forces of the GDR, created with the lively participation of Soviet military specialists, and Poland were also considered quite powerful.

Beginning in 1955, the next 36 years passed in Europe under the sign of confrontation between NATO and the Warsaw Pact blocs. This confrontation ended in 1991 with the signing of an agreement on the dissolution of the military organization of the Warsaw Pact, the withdrawal of Soviet units, first from the distant approaches to our country (from Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the GDR), and then from the troubled outskirts, which suddenly became independent states.

Thus, at present, Europe is completely dominated by the NATO military bloc, which was replenished in the 1990s - early 2000s with new members - former members of the Warsaw Pact Organization and even former Soviet republics. However, along with the euphoria from the expansion of NATO to the East, in the former limits of the so-called "Eastern bloc", came the first serious problems and disagreements. "Old Europeans" - members of NATO, are expressing increasing dissatisfaction with the dominance in the bloc of the United States, which regularly draws member countries of the bloc into various military adventures. And if in 1999 almost all NATO members directly or indirectly took part in the aggression against Yugoslavia, then already in 2001 some NATO members took part only formally in the American invasion of Afghanistan. And already in 2003, Germany and France openly refused to participate in the Iraqi adventure. At the same time, the states that have only recently become NATO members strive with indescribable zeal to participate in all military operations carried out and planned by the United States.

Russia has repeatedly spoken sharply negatively about the expansion of the North Atlantic Alliance, but no one took into account the opinion of our country on this issue. In this regard, at the suggestion of Russia, on May 15, 1992, the Collective Security Treaty of the CIS member countries, and more specifically, Armenia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Russia, was signed. In accordance with the Treaty, the participating States ensure their security on a collective basis. Thus, Article 2 of the Treaty states: “In the event of a threat to the security, territorial integrity and sovereignty of one or more participating States, or a threat to international peace and security, the participating States will immediately activate the mechanism of joint consultations in order to coordinate their positions and adopt measures to eliminate the threat." Thus, it can be seen that in doctrinal terms, the Collective Security Treaty expresses a purely defensive concept, not directed against any particular country or group of countries.

Within the framework of the CSTO, in 2001, the Collective Rapid Reaction Forces were created, which included one battalion each from Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. And on October 11, 2005, CSTO Secretary Nikolai Bordyuzha announced that a collective army grouping would be created on the territory of Central Asia, which would include regiments and even divisions from each country. It is planned that the new grouping will be subject to a single command. In the event of the outbreak of a large-scale military conflict, the CSTO member states will be obliged to provide their armies or all their armed forces to repel aggression. Thus, a serious bid has been made to turn the CSTO into a full-fledged military bloc, not even at the regional level, but at the world level.

Another political organization within which active military construction is being carried out is the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, which includes Russia, China, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, and India, Pakistan, Iran and Mongolia participate as observers in its activities. The previous two years have passed under the sign of "combat coordination" of units and subunits of the armed forces of the SCO member states. In particular, one can recall the largest Russian-Chinese Peace Mission maneuvers that took place in the summer of 2005, the Russian-Indian exercises of the Airborne Forces, the Russian-Uzbek exercises of the special forces units of the GRU and the Airborne Forces, and some others. All this indicates the seriousness of the intentions to create a military component of this purely political organization, although such intentions have not been officially announced by anyone and nowhere.

The military potential of this hypothetical block will be very powerful - Russia, China, India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons in their arsenals; the army of Uzbekistan is considered the most powerful (not counting the Russian one) among the Central Asian republics of the former USSR; The Chinese army has a huge number and is pretty well equipped. However, one cannot ignore the irreconcilable contradictions that exist between India and Pakistan, India and China, and rather cool relations between Pakistan and Russia. Therefore, it is natural that “sub-blocs” can be formed within such a bloc - for example, in the interests of Russia to interact more closely with India and Iran, and in the future, to conclude mutually beneficial military-strategic alliances with these states in order to ensure security in the region. The emergence of a regional military alliance between China and Pakistan is also likely, because these two countries have a long history of military relations. However, in the event of a real threat from other countries or blocs, the armed forces of the SCO member states should act as a united front against the aggressors.

The issue of military cooperation within the SCO is becoming especially topical on the eve of the increasingly likely upcoming US invasion of Iran. But regardless of whether the concept of this military bloc is developed and implemented in the coming years, Russia needs to strengthen its military-political presence in the region, including by signing real military-strategic agreements with its traditional partners - India and Iran.

Strengthening the southern borders of our state, including on the "distant approaches", is one of the most important tasks of the current moment.

Objections may follow in the spirit that participation in military blocs for our country is an unnecessary, costly, troublesome, unprofitable business. They say that after the Second World War there has not yet been a single armed conflict between the military blocs of states, and if so, it means that military blocs are a relic of the damned past, from which to get rid of as soon as possible. However, one should not forget that the big war did not happen precisely because all the leaders of the states that were part of the blocs understood what this could lead to.

Summarizing, it can be argued that the participation and undisputed leadership of Russia in various military blocs beneficial to it is necessary in order to “stake out” and adequately protect its political, economic and other state interests in various regions of the globe.

The Cold War (1946-1991) is a period in the development of international relations and foreign policy of the USSR. The essence of the Cold War was the political, military-strategic and ideological confrontation between the countries of the capitalist and socialist systems. It split the world into two parts, two military-political and economic groups, two socio-political systems. The world has become bipolar, bipolar.

The formal beginning of the "cold war" was the speech of W. Churchill in Fulton (USA) on March 5, 1946, in which he called on Western countries to fight "the expansion of totalitarian communism."

Background of the Cold War: pro-Soviet regimes emerged in Europe; the liberation movement is expanding in the colonies against the mother countries; two superpowers were formed, the military and economic power of which gave them a significant superiority over others; the interests of the Western countries in various parts of the globe begin to collide with the interests of the USSR; mutual distrust, the formation by each side of the "image of the enemy."

Stages of the Cold War

Stage I: 1946-1953 — confrontation between two military-political blocs in Europe

After the end of World War II, the leadership of the USSR did everything possible to ensure that pro-Soviet forces, primarily communist parties, came to power in the countries of Central and South-Eastern Europe. J. Kennan in February 1946 outlined the basic principles of the "containment" policy. American policy towards the USSR took a course to limit the spread of communist ideology in the countries of Western Europe and the Soviet Union's support for communist movements.

• The US President G. Truman's doctrine (1947) assumed a policy of American interference in the political, military, and economic affairs of the Balkans and other countries. On May 22, 1947, the Truman Doctrine went into effect.
• An integral part of the new US foreign policy was the program for the economic revival of war-torn Europe, the Marshall Plan (1947).
• On August 29, 1949, the first tests of a nuclear bomb were carried out in the Soviet Union at the Semipalatinsk nuclear test site.
• Late 1940s - in the USSR, repressions against dissidents begin, in the USA - a "witch hunt".
• The USSR is moving to the large-scale use of jet fighter-interceptors (B-47 and B-52).
• The most acute period of confrontation between the two blocs fell on the years of the Korean War.

Events:

March 17, 1948 - in Brussels, Great Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, Austria, Denmark, Switzerland and Sweden signed a 50-year pact providing for cooperation in the economic, social, cultural and military fields.

1948 - the conclusion of the USSR treaties of friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance with Romania, Hungary, Bulgaria, Finland.

1949 - the split of Germany (FRG and GDR).

April 4, 1949 - the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty (NATO), on the basis of which the combined armed forces were created, headed by US President D. Eisenhower.

1949 - creation of the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA) to jointly solve economic problems in connection with the split of Europe; this organization included the USSR, Hungary, Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Albania, in 1950 - the GDR, in 1962 - Mongolia.

1955 - the creation of a military-political union - the Warsaw Pact Organization (OVD), which included (at the time of signing) Albania (in 1968 it denounced the Treaty), Bulgaria, Hungary, the GDR, Poland, Romania, the USSR, Czechoslovakia.

Stage II: 1953-1962 - the onset of the Khrushchev "thaw" and the retreat of the threat of world war

• 1959 - N. S. Khrushchev's visit to the USA.
• The events of June 17, 1953 in the GDR, the events of 1956 in Poland, the anti-communist uprising in Hungary in 1956, the Suez crisis.
• 1957 - USSR tested an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) R-7 capable of reaching the United States. Since 1959, mass production of ICBMs began in the Soviet Union.
• The scandal with the American U-2 spy plane (1960) led to a new aggravation of relations between the USSR and the USA, which peaked in the Berlin Crisis (1961) and the Caribbean Crisis (1962).

Stage III: 1962-1979 - detente international tension

• In 1968, attempts at democratic reforms in Czechoslovakia (Prague Spring) caused the military intervention of the USSR and its allies.
• In Germany, the coming to power of the Social Democrats led by W. Brandt was marked by a new “Eastern policy”, which resulted in the Moscow Treaty between the USSR and the FRG in 1970, which fixed the inviolability of borders, the rejection of territorial claims and declared the possibility of uniting the FRG and the GDR.
• In 1975, a conference on security and cooperation in Europe was held in Helsinki, and a joint Soviet-American flight into space was carried out (the Soyuz-Apollo program).
• Treaties on the limitation of strategic arms have been signed. In military terms, the basis of "detente" was the nuclear-missile parity of the blocs that had developed by that time.
• 1974 - The United States and other NATO countries began to modernize forward-based facilities in Western Europe or off its coast; The United States is creating new generations of cruise missiles.
• In 1976, the USSR began deploying RSD-10 Pioneer (SS-20) medium-range missiles on the western borders, modernized general-purpose forces stationed in Central Europe, in particular, the Tu-22M long-range bomber.
• December 12, 1979 — NATO decided to deploy American medium-range and shorter-range missiles on the territory of Western European countries and to start negotiations with the USSR on the issue of euro-missiles.

Stage IV: 1979-1985 - a new aggravation in connection with the entry of Soviet troops into Afghanistan, a violation of the geopolitical balance and the transition of the USSR to a policy of expansion

• In 1981, the United States began the production of neutron weapons - artillery shells and warheads of the Lance short-range missile.
• In the fall of 1983, a South Korean civilian airliner was shot down by Soviet air defense forces. It was then that US President Ronald Reagan called the USSR an "evil empire."
• In 1983, the United States deployed Pershing-2 medium-range ballistic missiles on the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany, Great Britain, Denmark, Belgium and Italy, 5-7 minutes flying to targets on the European territory of the USSR, and air-launched cruise missiles; began developing a space missile defense program (the so-called Star Wars program).
• In 1983-1986 Soviet nuclear forces and the missile attack warning system were on high alert.

Stage V: 1985-1991 — M. S. Gorbachev came to power, détente policies of the 1970s, arms control programs (meeting in Reykjavik)

• In 1988, the withdrawal of Soviet troops from Afghanistan begins.
• The fall of the communist system in Eastern Europe in 1989-1990. led to the liquidation of the Soviet bloc, and with it the actual cessation of the Cold War.

Manifestations of the Cold War:

- acute political and ideological confrontation between the communist and Western liberal systems;

- creation of a system of military (NATO, Warsaw Pact Organization, SEATO, CENTO, ANZUS, ANZUK) and economic (EEC, CMEA, ASEAN, etc.) unions;

- creation of an extensive network of military bases of the USA and the USSR on the territory of foreign states;

- forcing the arms race; a sharp increase in military spending;

- international crises (Berlin crises, Caribbean crisis, Korean War, Vietnam War, Afghan War);

- the tacit division of the world into "spheres of influence" (Soviet and Western blocs), within which the possibility of intervention was tacitly allowed in order to maintain a regime pleasing to one or another bloc (Soviet intervention in Hungary in 1956, Soviet intervention in Czechoslovakia in 1968, the American operation in Guatemala, the overthrow of the anti-Western government in Iran organized by the USA and Great Britain, the invasion of Cuba organized by the USA, etc.);

- the rise of the national liberation movement in colonial and dependent countries and territories, the decolonization of these countries, the formation of the "third world"; non-aligned movement, neo-colonialism;

- waging a massive "psychological war";

- support for anti-government forces abroad;

- reduction of economic and humanitarian ties between states with different socio-political systems;

- Boycotts of the Olympic Games (the United States and a number of other countries boycotted the 1980 Summer Olympics in Moscow, the USSR and most socialist countries boycotted the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles).

Recently, the council “NATO and regional military alliances 2018” was opened in Norfolk, USA, organized by the Advisory Committee on Defense Policy, the Command of the US Special Operations Forces and the Council for Consultations, Command and Control of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The main agenda of the event is devoted to the vectors of NATO's development, taking into account the experience of current conflicts in the context of the growing dynamics of conflict situations in the alliance's areas of responsibility. The result of the work of the platform will be the development of a conceptual and analytical base for the NATO Consultation, Command and Control Council.

The key event was the presentation by Daniel Birch, Special Representative of the Middle East Division of the US Department of Defense General Directorate of Military Assessments and Analysis, of the US-NATO: Global Challenges and Prospects program.

The document determined the status quo of the military-political bloc both in US foreign policy and in the "global design" (global design of world military alliances), i.e. in military-political and geopolitical analysis, and the applied methodological base and main provisions were accepted as the theoretical basis for the future development of the North Atlantic Alliance. De facto, the program provisions secured the transition of US-NATO relations and alliance allies to a qualitatively new level within the framework of the recently adopted new edition of the US National Security Strategy.

“The modern world is multimodal and extremely dangerous, covered by a wide range of threats. Opponent states undermine our interests. In the Middle East and Asia, terrorists controlled by unstable transitional regimes occupy large territories. Under these conditions, our main task is to protect the sovereign rights of our citizens and national interests. But no less important for us is the safety of our permanent partners. Modern wars, like the world, have advanced considerably due to progress. They cannot be conducted by the same methods as 25 or 10 years ago. The conflict is asymmetrical and the threats are increasingly hybrid. Today there is a need for a qualitatively new military-political base capable of protecting our collective security and democratic foundations. Any potential conflict is our conflict, because it somehow poses a threat to our interests,” reads the preamble of the “US-NATO: Global Challenges and Prospects” program.

According to the authors of the document, the main problem for further ensuring global dominance (through factor systems) and at the same time for security is the policy-legal status of the bloc, namely, articles restricting operations outside the geographic areas of responsibility of the alliance. What with the current level of development of transport, telecommunications networks and the presence of "alternative resource bases" (formed when global alternatives appeared or as a result of the loss of control over areas of constant instability) and the growth of conflict zones leads to a decrease in the operational flexibility of the forces and means involved. The same problem, exacerbated by the need for complex logistics at both the tactical and strategic levels, does not allow for the prompt establishment of the necessary interaction between the forces of NATO member countries and the US Strategic Command (STRATCOM) at the regional level, with the exception of the Alliance's Rapid Reaction Forces. As a result, a significant decrease in operational-tactical freedom. According to Daniel Birch, these conclusions were obtained as a result of a qualitative analysis of a number of characteristics of ongoing joint operations in Libya, Iraq and Syria.

In addition, the uncoordinated use of military, special, trade, economic and political methods of influence by individual NATO member states within the framework of the common goals of collective security leads to an imbalance in relations within the alliance itself and to a decrease in confidence on the part of regional allies.

In particular, the conflict over the spheres of influence of France and Italy on the Libyan-Sudanese border is given as an example, where both countries are fighting for control over the Sudanese tribal militias, which are a buffer for migratory flows coming from the Sahara. At the same time, both sides are striving to occupy the remote fields of the South-East of Libya. As a result, these processes create diplomatic barriers to expand US interaction with the regime of Khalifa Haftar, who controls the Libyan east and the main fields.

A similar block of examples is connected with the territories of Syria and Iraq, where disagreements arose between the US, Germany, France and Great Britain over the supply and training of the Kurdish militia, controlled by the Kurdish National Councils, and the Syrian Democratic Forces. As a result, the decrease in US influence on controlled groups, which required additional resource costs from both the Pentagon and the North Atlantic Alliance.

In this regard, according to analysts of the Defense Ministry and special departments of the United States, given the actual imbalance acquired within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the most promising direction in modern geopolitical conditions is the construction of factor systems of international coalition models. “This will ensure the most acceptable level of coordination of the interests of the member countries of the alliance and maintain partnerships with our regional allies. At the same time, the use of promising technologies will increase the legitimacy of the alliance in the face of the world community without prejudice to the military-political component,” said Daniel Burch.

Proceeding from this, the main military-political interaction is moving from the institutional to the non-institutional level with respect to the North Atlantic Alliance. Those. NATO ceases to play the role of an external control structure and transfers this function within the framework of geopolitical modeling to various coordinating centers and territorial headquarters of STRATCOM, interacting with which in certain theaters, the “coalition of states” and their territorial structures will act as the main actor. The alliance itself performs the role of "ensuring the territorial integrity" of the participating countries. Those. is used as a basic structure for the modernization of material, technical and technological bases, a single scientific space, solves issues of collective defense and budgeting, and also performs political functions to develop a collegial position on existing crisis systems.

The application of this approach removes questions about reforming the structure of NATO, since military-political subjectivity outside the bloc's areas of responsibility is abolished. At the same time, the rigid vertical structure of decision-making and coordination is replaced by a more flexible territorial structure. Such a construction of a block model at the same time allows you to optimize resources, combine the management of both the forces and means of the United States, as well as NATO member countries and their regional partners in a particular theater of operations. As a result, there is an increase in operational flexibility and situational stability of the entire education.

The “US-NATO: Global Challenges and Prospects” program itself is based on a comprehensive factorial analysis of potential crisis systems through the closed “Index of Current and Projected Dynamics of Military-Political Conflicts. Taking into account cross-border threats”. According to Daniel Birch, the methodological basis for ranking "crisis zones" is similar to BERI, but the full set of variables, as well as the methods for their classification, have not been presented.

As a result of applying the above methodology, the countries included in the subregional zone of the Greater Middle East were divided into 4 clusters:

1) Unstable areas or tending to instability - the need for external democratic control: Algeria/Morocco, Libya/Sudan, Egypt/Sudan, Iraq/Turkey, Syria/Turkey, Iraq/Syria, Saudi Arabia/Yemen;
2) Stable zones with a general increase in internal threats - systems with developed democratic ties: Israel, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia;
3) Zones acquiring stability or relatively stable - development of democratic ties: Armenia/Azerbaijan, Afghanistan/Fergana zone;
4) Counterparties seeking chaos: Iran, Pakistan.

Also, in the explanatory note to the study, experts from the US Army Command Institute fixed an additional category of sources of threats for NATO member countries and their allies - these are "Regional asymmetric military-political unions", the system core of which is "Counterparties" - the Russian Federation and China. In particular, we are talking about the CSTO and the emerging security policy within the SCO, as well as the alliance of Iran, Pakistan and China. According to analysts and the authors of the document, these organizations are not without controversy and are at the stage of their formation, however, they are the sources of "alternative resource bases", which were mentioned above.

Here, in the course of assessing threats, the most effective method of limiting the influence of such subjects is "substitution technology". Those. the admission of alternative forces to them in the zones of geostrategic interests of the NATO countries. As an example, the successful coordination of the United States and India, which is China's geopolitical opponent in the so-called "Afghan zone", is given.

Turning to the conclusions, it should be noted, firstly, that the US-NATO: Global Challenges and Prospects program was adopted as a theoretical and methodological basis for the analytical support of the NATO Consultation, Command and Control Council, which means that the methods described in it will used for the actual activities of the United States and its allies in these territories.

Secondly, the given geographical classification within the framework of the “Index of the current and predicted dynamics of military-political conflicts. Taking into account cross-border threats”, even taking into account the undisclosed methodology, de facto designated countries that in the near future will be subject to complex influence from the member countries of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and their allies, which in turn will become part of the systemic influence on “counterparties” - Russia, China, Iran and Pakistan.

Thirdly, counteragent countries can counteract such a complex impact by building complex systems of multi-level alliances and strengthening integration within the framework of the above asymmetric block models, which will increase the factorial stability of these countries.

Maxim Alexandrov

The main goal of the activity of political blocs is cooperation of the participating countries in the political and military spheres, participation in the creation of a collective defense system, cooperation in maintaining peace and security in the territories and in the whole world, coordination of efforts to solve military-political and legal problems.

North Atlantic Treaty Organization - NATO (Nord Atlantic Treaty Organization - NATO). This is a military-political union of 26 countries, created on April 4, 1949 as part of the USA, Great Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Canada, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Denmark, Iceland, in 1952 Greece and Turkey joined it, in 1955 - Germany, in 1981 - Spain, in 1999 - Czech Republic, Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia.

In 1966, France withdrew from the military structure of NATO, but continues to be a member in political cooperation. Spain did the same in 1983.

Supreme bodies: session of the NATO Council (between sessions - the Permanent Council), the Defense Planning Committee, the Military Committee, the Nuclear Defense Committee. NATO's working body is the International Secretariat headed by the Secretary General.

Purpose: to ensure the freedom and security of all members by political and military means in accordance with the principles of the UN Charter; joint actions and all-round cooperation with the aim of strengthening the security of the participating states, ensuring a just and lasting peace in Europe based on common values, democracy and human rights.

Headquarters - Brussels (Belgium).

Interparliamentary Union. It is an international governmental organization that brings together national parliamentary groups, established in 1889.

Goal: to unite the parliaments of all countries to strengthen peace and cooperation between states.

Headquarters - Geneva (Switzerland).

African Union - AU (African Union - AU). It was created on May 26, 1963 at a conference of heads of state and government of African countries in Addis Ababa under the name of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the current name was received on 07/11/2000. The objective reasons for the emergence of the AU were cardinal changes in the alignment of political forces in the world during the existence of the UAE (1963 - 2000) and the achievement at the turn of the new millennium of some of the tasks that were set for the OAU at the time of its creation.

The African Union includes all 53 African countries: Algeria, Angola, Burkina, Botswana, Burundi, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Djibouti, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Egypt, Zambia, Western sugar, Zimbabwe, Cape Verde, Cameroon, Kenya, Comoros, Congo, Ivory Coast, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Mauritius, Mauritania, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda , Sao Tome and Principe, Swaziland, Seychelles, Senegal, Somalia, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Togo, Tunisia, Uganda, CAR, Chad.

Goal: promote unity and solidarity among African countries, intensify and coordinate efforts to improve living standards, protect sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence, eliminate all forms of colonialism, harmonize cooperation in the fields of politics, defense and security, economy, education, health and culture.

Headquarters - Addis Ababa (Ethiopia).

ANZUS (from the first letters of the countries it was formed - Australia, New Zealand, United States - ANZUS). It is a tripartite union of Australia, New Zealand and the United States. Operates since 1952.

Goal: collective defense in the Pacific region.

ANZUK (from the first letters of the countries it was formed - Australia, New Zealand, United Kingdom - ANZUK). This is a five-sided bloc of Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, Malaysia, Singapore.

Purpose: to promote collective defense in the Pacific region.

It has no permanent headquarters.

Organization of American States - OAS (Organization of American States - OAS). Military-political union, created in 1948 at the 9th International Conference in Bogota, which adopted the Charter of the OAS.

Composition (35 countries): Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Bolivia, Brazil, Venezuela, Haiti, Guyana, Guatemala, Honduras, Grenada, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Canada, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, El Salvador, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, USA, Suriname, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay, Chile, Jamaica.

Purpose: maintenance of peace and security in America, suppression and peaceful settlement of conflicts between participating states, organization of joint actions in repelling aggression; coordination of efforts to solve political, economic, legal problems, promotion of economic, social, scientific, technical and cultural progress of the participating countries.

Headquarters - Washington (USA).

However, no more or less coherent concept of the distinctive features and correlation of historical communities of people has existed to date. Therefore, European historiography uses terminology created by ancient authors who considered all social groups (communities) barbarians ( e.g. Germans and Slavs) none other than tribes, although these were clearly already UNIONS OF TRIBES.

1.2. The reason for the dislike for UNIONS OF TRIBES - both anthropologists and historians - is explained by the SPECIAL formational approach in Marxism, when only the moments of revolutionary transitions from one formation to another were considered the main thing. Karl Marx only declared the development of productive forces, but during the period of the primitive communal formation no evolutionary development was expected. And in general, for the next generations of Marxists - studying the primitive order was dangerous, since Marx and Engels designated the tribes as those units of humanity in which classes appear, making an assumption about a certain decomposition of tribal relations. Since no facts of decomposition were found, it turned out that any honest study contradicted the postulates of Marxism.

Of course, neither Marx nor Engels assumed that the formational concept, which had become a dogma, deprived anthropologists of the opportunity to study TRIBES, which were all considered to be the same type of tribal communities, unchanged from the moment of inception until their transformation into a state. Indeed, the very concept of socio-economic formations set the upward dynamics of the development of society, but since in Marxism the line of development of mankind was presented in the form step ladder formations, where the transition to the next stage occurred due to the revolution, then the stage should have been immutable static essence.

Marx only declared that some accumulation of contradiction occurs within the formation, but he saw the formations themselves as unchanging systems, the structure of which was frozen from the moment of appearance to the transformation into the next one. After all, it was precisely such a representation of the line of development of mankind that corresponded to his basic theory of the class struggle as the driving force of history. When Marx, for the sake of substantiating his theories, appointed the primitive communal system responsible for the emergence of classes, then studying TRIBES from the point of view of any evolution became tantamount to challenging the authority of the founder.

The work of Engels for a century ahead resolved all the theoretical problems of the communal system for anthropologists, declaring the TRIBE a static entity, which at the formation stage did not have the right to develop at least somehow. Engels himself became the patron saint of anthropology, but another thing is that the factual material collected by anthropologists refuted the tenets of Marxism.

When creating the formational concept, not only the incompetence of Marx and Engels in anthropology was manifested, but also the fact that they were in captivity of the chauvinistic ideas about the Indians that dominated their time. This could not be avoided by the American ethnographer Lewis Morgan, whose book "Ancient Society" (published in 1877) was the primary source of Marx's ideas on primitive antiquity. Morgan himself, of course, could not fail to notice the UNIONS OF TRIBES of the North American Indians, but he did not consider them units of humanity, considering them only as a set of separate tribal groups, which were his exemplary "tribes".

Mogran himself was the bearer of the "white man's burden", which in the 19th century was also characteristic of the inhabitants of Europe. Apparently, the worldview of both Marx and Engels could not but have a different relationship to the Indians, as to people supposedly leading a backward primitive way of life, which is their business as a reference model of the inhabitants of a primitive communal formation. Indeed, the North American Indians did not have domesticated animals, they led a nomadic lifestyle of hunters of wild animals, which in the eyes of Europeans made them "backward", and their way of life - supposedly typical of all ancient people. Thus, the authority of Marx and Engels turned an undeveloped, or rather, only outlined, formational concept into a generally accepted dogma.

Regarding the ideas about the possibility of preserving “backward tribes” to this day, I want to say that already in the Neolithic people entered the TERRITORIAL UNIONS, and only a few isolated tribes that did not experience the factor of the finiteness of the earth got the opportunity to evolve into LEADERSHIPS. That natural life, which is considered by many to be allegedly "backward" - from the point of view of evolution - is just a much more advanced way of life than the way of life of observers, in conceit considering himself "civilized". The supposedly “backward tribes” observed today are as far from the primitive way of life as all living people. Their way of life is the result of evolutionary adaptation to natural and climatic conditions over tens, and maybe hundreds of thousands of years.