What is military strategic parity. Maintaining military-strategic parity is a serious factor in ensuring peace and international security. A new round of confrontation

Health

MILITARY THOUGHT No. 12/1986, pp. 3-13

Decisions of the XXVII Congress of the CPSU - in life!

Preservation of military-strategic parity - serious factor peace and international security*

Army GeneralM. M. KOZLOV ,

The DOCUMENTS of the 27th CPSU Congress contain a comprehensive and scientifically substantiated program for the socio-economic development of the USSR, the strengthening of the community of socialist countries, and the struggle for peace and international security. They reveal the nature, alignment and relationships of the main opposing social and political forces. Taking into account the significant changes that have taken place in the world over a quarter of a century, the documents formulate a number of new, fundamentally important conclusions and provisions. They relate primarily to the characteristics of the main content of the era, the main driving forces social development, the world of capitalism, military-strategic parity between the USSR and the USA, the Warsaw Pact and NATO as important factor ensuring peace and international security in modern conditions, the reactionary anti-human essence of the policy and ideology of imperialism.

“The historical achievement of socialism,” says the Program of the CPSU, “was the establishment of military-strategic parity between the USSR and the USA, the Warsaw Treaty Organization and NATO. It strengthened the positions of the USSR, the socialist countries and all progressive forces, upset the calculations of the aggressive circles of imperialism for victory in a world nuclear war. Maintaining this balance is a serious factor in ensuring peace and international security.”

However, the American programs of nuclear missiles, space militarization and new strategic concepts leave no doubt that the main goal of world imperialism is to break the established military-strategic parity and achieve nuclear superiority. Imperialism puts the achievements of human genius at the service of creating weapons of monstrous destructive power. The policy of imperialist circles, which are ready to sacrifice the fate of entire peoples, increases the danger that such weapons may be used. That is why, in the current conditions, the decisive factors determining relations between the socialist and capitalist countries, the USSR and the USA, will be the balance of forces in the world arena, the growth and activity of the potential of the world, its ability to effectively counter the threat nuclear war.

The human mind urgently demands that everything necessary be done to preserve civilization and eliminate the formidable danger hanging over it. The 27th Congress of the CPSU substantiated the conclusion that historical meaning for the fate of mankind: “...no matter how great the threat to peace posed by the policy of the aggressive circles of imperialism, there is no fatal inevitability of a world war. It is possible to prevent war, save humanity from catastrophe. This is the historical vocation of socialism, of all the progressive, peace-loving forces of our planet.” That is how the progressive people of the whole Earth evaluate the proposals of the USSR at the Soviet-American summit in Reykjavik. Approving the activities of Comrade Gorbachev MS at this meeting, the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU noted that the position of the Soviet side was honest and open. It was based on the principles of equality and equal security, took into account the interests of both countries, their allies, the peoples of all states, and was a concrete expression of a new approach, new thinking, the need for which is dictated by the realities of the nuclear missile age. The Soviet side made new compromise proposals that fully took into account the concerns of the American side and made it possible to agree on such important issues, as a reduction, and in the future, the complete elimination of strategic offensive weapons and the destruction of medium-range missiles in Europe.

Unfortunately, the practically reached agreement on these issues could not be translated into binding agreements between the parties. Ultimately, the only reason for this was the US administration's stubborn unwillingness to create conditions for the implementation of these agreements by strengthening the missile defense regime and accepting corresponding obligations that are the same for both sides.

The socialist states, with their growing economic and defensive might, are the main force in the struggle for peace. Therefore, the Armed Forces of the USSR, the armies of other fraternal countries of socialism today face the task of protecting not only the socialist Fatherland and the community of socialist states, but also the preservation of universal peace, the existence human civilization.

A significant role in curbing the aggressive forces of imperialism and creating an international security system is played by military-strategic parity (an approximate balance of power) between the USSR and the USA, between the Warsaw Treaty Organization and NATO. Its core is exemplary equality in the field of nuclear and other types of weapons. The achievement and consolidation of military-strategic parity are the most tangible and impressive indicators of the possibilities and abilities of socialism to successfully resist modern imperialism in the military sphere. They strengthened the positions of our country, the socialist countries and all progressive forces, and refuted the calculations of the aggressive circles of imperialism for victory in a world nuclear war.

The need to achieve and maintain such parity with the United States and NATO was dictated and is being dictated to the USSR and the Warsaw Treaty member states by the realities of the class struggle in the international arena. “Marxism demands from us,” wrote V. I. Lenin, “the most accurate, objectively verifiable account of the correlation of classes and the specific features of each historical moment. We Bolsheviks have always tried to be faithful to this demand, which is absolutely obligatory from the point of view of any scientific substantiation of politics” (Pol. sobr. soch., vol. 31, p. 132).

Whole story international relations after 1917 convincingly confirms that anti-Sovietism and anti-communism were and remain the basis of the entire policy of imperialism. For almost seventy years, the ruling circles of imperialism, led by the United States, have been making the most diverse efforts to substantially squeeze the positions of socialism. Military means play a key role in this policy. Imperialism has primarily used and continues to use each new achievement of scientific and technological progress for military purposes, for the struggle against socialism.

Already at the very beginning of the appearance of nuclear weapons, the desire to arrange the world according to the American model, to destroy world socialism led by the USSR, with the help of military force, primarily nuclear, became the main policy and strategy of the US ruling circles. Thus, in May 1945, at a meeting with American atomic scientists, US Secretary of State J. Byrnes stated that "the atomic bomb is needed not to defeat Japan, but to put pressure on the Russians." The Long Range Strategy document, drafted by the U.S. Chiefs of Staff in the early days of peace in 1945, stated: “... our policy must be based on the following premise: we cannot allow a political system contrary to ours to survive.” Ignoring the proposals of the Soviet Union to ban nuclear weapons, the United States decided to stake on achieving military-strategic superiority in this type of weapons. They began intensively to improve and develop means of delivery, first of all, strategic bombers, and then strategic missiles. By the end of 1945, the committee of chiefs of staff in a secret report spoke in favor of applying atomic strikes in the form of "retaliation" (despite the fact that the USSR was not going and is not going to attack anyone) or preemptive strikes. As you increase nuclear arsenal in the USA, the plans of their ruling circles to attack the USSR were also expanding. Pincher, Chariotir, Cogwill, Troyan, Gunpowder, Fleetwood - all these are the names of plans of aggression against the USSR, based on the concept of massive bombing of military and civilian targets "to suppress the strength and spirit of resistance adversary." Plans for a nuclear attack on the USSR assumed an increasingly sinister and large-scale character. According to the Dropshot plan (1949), the bombing of the Soviet Union was planned for 300 atomic bombs and millions of tons of conventional explosives. The calculation was made for the transformation into ruins of Soviet cities, for the destruction of up to 85 percent. Soviet industry.

Soviet Union was forced to respond to this challenge and, in the face of the impending atomic threat, set about creating nuclear weapons. At the same time, our country proposed to impose a ban on the use of it and other means of mass destruction, to establish strict international control over such a ban within the framework of the UN.

However, the US ruling circles continued to build up their potential and did not for a moment refuse to prepare for a nuclear war against our state. The so-called strategic "triad" was created, consisting of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs) and strategic bombers. Around the borders of the USSR, they deployed a system of advanced basing of offensive weapons. Nuclear weapons appeared in some Western European countries. By December 1960, a "single comprehensive operational plan" for the US attack on our country (SIOP-1) was developed, which provided for a strike by all the forces of the "triad" of the United States and British nuclear weapons in order to completely destroy the Soviet Union. This setting was also the basis of the SIOP-5D plan (early 80s), which provided for a strike on 40,000 targets in the USSR and other socialist countries, including Vietnam and Cuba.

American imperialism throughout the entire post-war period was the initiator of each new round of the arms race, the creation of new, more advanced weapons systems (Fig. 1, Table 1). In the mid-1950s, the United States was the first to implement a program for the construction of intercontinental strategic bombers and nuclear submarines, and in the late 1960s, they began to equip strategic ballistic missiles with multiply-charged multiple reentry vehicles. Then they rapidly began to develop a new type of strategic weapons - nuclear weapons. cruise missiles long range air, land and sea based. In the late 1970s, the United States created neutron munitions. Since 1983, they began to deploy their new nuclear missiles medium range. And yet, none of these actions strengthened their security, did not create military advantages for them. Washington's nuclear policy has stalled.

Unwilling to realize the reality of the nuclear-space age, the changed alignment of forces in the international arena, the United States is now betting on space. We are talking about the creation and deployment of a large-scale anti-missile system with space-based elements, the main components of which will be space strike weapons. They are weapons on new physical principles, designed to destroy objects in space and from space on earth. These are various kinds of lasers, neutron particle beam generators, homing interceptor missiles, electromagnetic guns based not only on earth, but also in space. Contrary to the US administration's assertions about the defensive nature of the space weapons system, it is inherently offensive, and the plans for its creation embody another attempt to acquire the possibility of delivering a first nuclear strike with impunity. Understanding this well, the public in the United States and other countries immediately dubbed Reagan's "strategic defense initiative" the program " star wars". Its goal is to try to gain military superiority over the USSR, all the countries of socialism. After Reykjavik, Comrade M. S. Gorbachev emphasized in a speech on October 14, 1986 on Soviet television, the notorious SDI turned out to be even more visible to everyone as a symbol of obstruction to the cause of peace, as a concentrated expression of militaristic plans, unwillingness to remove the nuclear threat hanging over humanity.

From the very first steps in space exploration, the Soviet Union came up with a proposal to ban the use of outer space for military purposes, to establish a wide the international cooperation in its study and use exclusively in peaceful interests. “It is extremely necessary,” it was emphasized at the 27th Congress of the CPSU, “before it is too late to find real solution, which would guarantee against the transfer of the arms race into space. The Star Wars program cannot be allowed to be used both as an incentive for a further arms race and as a blockage on the road to radical disarmament.

Without weakening its efforts to stop the arms race, the USSR, together with other fraternal socialist countries, in the name of ensuring the security of the socialist community and preserving peace, was forced to take retaliatory measures to eliminate the military superiority of the United States and other NATO member countries. “Over the past 40 years, the threat of a new world war has loomed over the world more than once,” stressed candidate member of the Politburo of the CPSU Central Committee, Minister of Defense of the USSR Marshal of the Soviet Union S. L. Sokolov at the XXVII Congress of the CPSU. - The United States of America has repeatedly hatched plans for a nuclear attack on our country. And if until now imperialism has not dared to realize them, it is primarily because it was held back by the military and economic might of our state, the inevitability of retaliatory strikes against the aggressor.

The elimination of the US nuclear monopoly, the invulnerability of their territory from retaliatory nuclear strikes, the well-known successes of the Soviet Union in the field of strategic nuclear weapons in the late 60s and early 70s - all these are the main stages in achieving military-strategic parity between the USSR and the USA, the Organization Warsaw Pact and NATO.

Military-strategic parity is the approximate equality of the military potentials of the opposing sides. Under such conditions, neither side can expect to win a nuclear war. The bottom line is that each of them, even if it becomes a victim of aggression, will retain enough forces and means to inflict irreparable damage to the enemy. Military equilibrium is not a mathematical equality of opposing armed forces and armaments. It can be correctly assessed by taking into account the totality of armaments, the historical structure of the armed forces, and a number of other factors that determine the strategic situation.

The basis of military-strategic parity is the social, economic, political, scientific and technical capabilities of the parties. They find their concentrated expression in the combat power of the armed forces, which is determined primarily by the quality and quantity of their weapons and military equipment, the strategic position of groupings in theaters of operations and in military geographical areas. When determining military-strategic parity, along with the quantitative indicators of the armed forces, it is necessary to take into account their structural and other characteristics.

In the early 1970s, the American administration (first R. Nixon, and then D. Ford) recognized the fact of military-strategic parity between the USSR and the USA. It was carefully calibrated during the preparation of the Soviet-American SALT-2 Treaty, signed at the highest level in June 1979 in Vienna. The agreement provided for certain restrictions on quantitative growth and qualitative improvement strategic weapons sides.

Each contracting party was allowed to build, test and deploy only one type of light ICBM. It was forbidden to increase the number of existing and create new heavy ground-based and sea-based missiles. Qualitative restrictions were also established on individual characteristics, the modernization of existing and the creation of new types of strategic offensive weapons. In the indicated quantitative restrictions, the parties could and did have an unequal composition of weapons, which was due to the prevailing differences in the directions of development and the structure of their strategic nuclear forces. The SALT-2 treaty made it possible in the future to achieve lower levels of strategic weapons. But the US refused to ratify this treaty because it did not meet their imperial ambitions. In the early 1980s, they began to implement their new strategic programs in order to achieve military superiority over the USSR (Fig. 2, 3).

On May 27, 1986, President Reagan announced the actual refusal of the United States to continue to comply with the Soviet-American treaty-legal documents on the limitation of strategic offensive arms. He stated that, in future decisions regarding the buildup of US strategic forces, the US would not adhere to the restrictions stipulated by the SALT agreements.

As for other elements of the military-strategic parity between the Warsaw Pact and NATO, their combat potential (ground forces, air force, navy, military branches (forces) and other components of the armed forces), then the main criterion here can be considered combat capabilities to fulfill the strategic and operational tasks assigned to them in modern warfare with the use of nuclear and conventional weapons. It is they who have a decisive influence on the required number of formations, formations, weapons and military equipment, on the system and methods of command and control of the armed forces.

In a speech on Soviet television on October 22, 1986, Comrade Gorbachev M.S. emphasized that until now the common thesis in the West was the assertion of the "superiority" of the Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact states in conventional weapons. It allegedly compels NATO to continuously build up its nuclear potential. Of course, there is no imbalance. After Reykjavik, this fact was first publicly acknowledged by Mr. Schultz and Mr. Regan. But the essence of the problem is not reduced to maintaining parity. We don't want to arm race
war has moved from the realm of nuclear to the realm of conventional weapons. Let me remind you that our January proposal to eliminate nuclear weapons before the end of the century also included provisions for the destruction chemical weapons and deep cuts in conventional weapons.

We repeatedly returned to this issue after January. In the most detailed form, the proposals of the Warsaw Pact countries were formulated this summer in Budapest. We sent them to the other side - I mean NATO members.

A characteristic feature of modern armed struggle is the coalition composition of the opposing sides. Even local wars involving only two states affect the interests of not only neighboring countries, but also those far removed from the conflict area. coalition modern wars due to the alignment of forces in the world, the presence of military-political groups, blocs and alliances pursuing opposite political goals. Already in peacetime, they have large, highly combat-ready combined armed forces equipped with modern types of weapons. Therefore, the maintenance of military-strategic parity in modern conditions is possible only at the level of opposing coalitions, i.e., at the level of the member states of the Warsaw Pact and the NATO bloc, the balance of military forces of which the Soviet leadership has repeatedly proved by concrete calculations.

The material basis of the combat potential is not only peacetime and wartime troops and forces, but also the degree to which they are provided with material and technical means, all types of allowances and supplies.

The need to maintain military-strategic parity for the USSR and its allies is dictated by a number of objective factors. First of all, the aggressive, adventurist nature of imperialism compels the socialist countries to pursue a policy of maintaining an approximate military-strategic balance between the USSR and the USA, between the member states of the Warsaw Pact and the NATO bloc. The bloody US war against Vietnam, the blockade of Cuba for many years, the capture of defenseless Grenada, the piratical actions against Nicaragua, the undeclared war in Afghanistan, the attack on Libya - these are just some of the facts. recent years which speak of the aggressiveness of imperialism, its readiness to use military force against socialism, democracy, and national liberation.

This is also evidenced by the “doctrine of neo-globalism”, which substantiates the imaginary right of the United States to carry out interventionist actions in Asia, Africa and Latin America under the pretext of defending “democracy” against “communist expansion”. But the peoples have learned to recognize the true intentions of contemporary world reaction. They see that in reality this is still the same imperial policy aimed at subjugation and enslavement, at undermining and suppressing national liberation movements and regimes objectionable to the United States of America.

In a situation where the reactionary forces of imperialism, led by the United States, are striving to secure world domination, the quantitative and qualitative weakening of the military potential of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact states would create military superiority for the United States and its allies, with the help of which, in the opinion of the ruling circles of imperialism, it would be possible to put pressure on the Soviet Union in future crises. Moreover, it cannot be ruled out that the US leaders may have the illusion that it is possible to achieve a military victory over the socialist countries. The real facts of reality do not guarantee that they will not be tempted to inflict a "disarming" blow on the USSR and its allies.

Violation of military-strategic parity in favor of the USA and the NATO bloc would increase the "adventurism factor" in the policy of imperialism and towards developing states, the danger of counter-revolution being exported, and would intensify the military-political expansion of imperialism into the countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America. This would lead to the weakening of the entire potential of the world.

The current level of balance of nuclear potentials of the opposing sides is prohibitively high. As long as it provides each of them with equal danger. But only for now. The continuation of the nuclear arms race will inevitably increase this equal danger and may push it to such limits that even parity will cease to be a factor of military-political deterrence. Therefore, it is necessary first of all to significantly reduce the level of military confrontation. Genuine equal security in our age is guaranteed not by an extremely high, but by an extremely low level of strategic balance, from which it is necessary to completely exclude nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction. The meeting in Reykjavik with the President of the United States, Comrade MS Gorbachev emphasized in a conversation with a group of world cultural figures, showed that it is possible to reach agreements that would lay the foundation for the elimination of nuclear weapons. The program of new proposals put forward by the USSR provides a real opportunity to get out of the impasse. But the meeting at the same time showed that considerable difficulties must be overcome on the way to agreements.

One of the main lessons of Reykjavik is that new political thinking, consistent with the realities of the nuclear age, is an indispensable condition for overcoming the critical situation in which humanity found itself at the end of the twentieth century. We need profound changes in the political thinking of the entire human community.

The analysis carried out by the Central Committee of the CPSU of the nature and extent of nuclear threat made it possible to formulate the conclusion, which has important theoretical and practical significance, that objective conditions have developed in the international arena in which the confrontation between capitalism and socialism can proceed only and exclusively in the forms of peaceful competition and peaceful rivalry. It should be like this international order, under which would dominate not military force but good neighborliness and cooperation, there would be a wide exchange of achievements in science and technology, cultural values for the benefit of all peoples. Our country is doing everything possible to get out of the situation of "mutually assured destruction". The goal of the USSR's policy is the exclusion of nuclear weapons from the arsenals of states and, ultimately, their complete destruction. “... Our proposals for the complete elimination of nuclear weapons,” said the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU M.S. nuclear age countries.

Realizing the responsibility for the fate of all mankind, the USSR and other fraternal socialist countries consider military-strategic parity only as a certain milestone, moving from which it is necessary to achieve a reduction, and in the future, the complete elimination of the threat of nuclear war.

Realistically assessing the possibilities modern means armed struggle, the XXVII Congress of the CPSU made a new and fundamentally important conclusion that they, especially nuclear ones, do not leave any state hope to protect itself only by military-technical means, even by creating the most powerful defense. Playing an increasingly important role in security political means. Speaking on Soviet television on October 22, 1986, Comrade MS Gorbachev noted that the meeting in Reykjavik was generally considered to have raised the Soviet-American dialogue to a new level, as well as the East-West dialogue in general.

From this height one can see new perspectives in solving the problems that are so acute today - security, nuclear disarmament, the prevention of new rounds of the arms race, a new understanding of the possibilities that have opened up before mankind.

Military-strategic parity has created objective conditions for the elimination of useless and dangerous competition in the military sphere, since it clearly showed the futility of the attempts of imperialist circles to achieve military superiority over the USSR, the Warsaw Pact member states. Today, our country, together with its allies, is able to solve any scientific and technical problem and prevent military superiority over itself, either on earth or in space. Imperialism's attempts to achieve military superiority over the USSR and the socialist countries are not only useless, but also dangerous. They lead to an increase in the threat of destruction of human civilization. It is only reasonable to move along the path of reducing the level of military-strategic balance.

The determination of the Soviet Union to fight persistently and consistently for lowering the level of military-strategic parity finds expression in the foreign policy of our country. With all her might she is confirmed General Secretary The Central Committee of the CPSU M. S. Gorbachev at the Geneva meeting, in the Statement of January 15, 1986, by the XXVII Congress of the CPSU. “Our country is in favor,” emphasized in the Political Report of the Central Committee of the CPSU to the XXVII Party Congress, “to withdraw weapons of mass destruction from circulation, to limit the military potential to the limits of reasonable sufficiency. But the nature and level of this limit continues to be limited by the positions and actions of the US, its bloc partners.” The principled course of the USSR against the arms race and the militarization of outer space is backed up by real deeds: our country's refusal to be the first to use nuclear weapons; the introduction of a moratorium on any nuclear explosions and a unilateral moratorium on the deployment of medium-range missiles in the European zone of the USSR; a statement that we will not be the first to take weapons into space, etc. The holistic concept of a nuclear-free world, the creation of a comprehensive system of international security, put forward by the 27th CPSU Congress, is a solid basis for solving the problem of preserving peace.

But the United States and its NATO partners continue to ignore the good will of the USSR and the fraternal socialist countries. The entire military policy of imperialism is aimed at achieving decisive superiority over the Soviet Union and its allies in order to obtain the possibility of delivering a preemptive nuclear strike. “As evidenced by the facts,” notes the Minister of Defense of the USSR, Marshal of the Soviet Union S. L. Sokolov, “the United States has not yet abandoned its long-standing and unrealizable goal of gaining an advantage over the USSR in the military field ... Influential circles in the West continue to adhere to the views , the essence of which lies precisely in the fact that with the help of military pressure to achieve their political goals, to turn the arms race into a means of economic weakening of the Soviet Union and its allies. The United States is stubbornly implementing the Star Wars program... By militarizing outer space, they expect to break the established military-strategic parity.

That is why the CPSU at the 27th Congress paid close attention to the further strengthening of the Soviet Armed Forces, the need to maintain military-strategic parity between the USSR and the USA, the Warsaw Pact and NATO. “In the military sphere, we intend to continue to do so,” Comrade MS Gorbachev said at the 27th CPSU Congress. - so that no one has any reason to fear, even imaginary, for their safety. But we and our allies alike want to be spared the feeling of a threat looming over us. The USSR undertook an obligation not to be the first to use nuclear weapons and will strictly adhere to it. But it is no secret that scenarios for a nuclear attack on us exist. We have no right to ignore them. Under these conditions, we repeat again and again: the Soviet Union does not claim greater security, it will not accept less.

Thus, military-strategic parity is the most important historical achievement of socialism, which plays an important role in curbing the aggressiveness of imperialism. It acts as a factor in ensuring peace, international security and the defense of the socialist community, significantly restricting the aggressive plans and possibilities of imperialism to unleash a world nuclear war.

Materials of the XXVII Congress Communist Party Soviet Union. - M.: Politizdat, 1986, p. 127.

Materials of the XXVII Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, p. 137.

Petrovsky VF Security in the nuclear space era. - M.: International relations, 1985, p. 12.

Ibid, p. 16.

Petrovsky VF Security in the nuclear space age, pp. 17-18.

Materials of the XXVII Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, p. 67.

To comment, you must register on the site.

The second half of the 1960s in international relations was characterized by an aggravation of " cold war". But by the end of the decade, new trends are emerging. After Caribbean Crisis when the world was on the brink of a nuclear war, it was understood that it was impossible to use atomic weapons in solving international conflicts. It became clear to everyone that there could be no winners in such a war. Therefore, the inconsistency of the international situation consisted, on the one hand, in the consistent leveling of the level of nuclear potentials between NATO and the Warsaw Pact and the formation of strategic parity between the USSR and the USA, and on the other hand, in the warming of international relations, which was called "detente". A fierce struggle for the countries of the "third world" continued between East and West. Often this rivalry led to local military conflicts (Vietnam, 1965, the Arab-Israeli war of 1967). Big influence China began to influence the balance of power in the international arena. The former unity was also broken in the countries of the socialist camp.

In the conditions of building up the nuclear potential in the world, one of the main directions of the Soviet foreign policy began the struggle to achieve military-strategic parity between East and West. And although it was achieved in 1969, the Soviet leadership still considered the build-up of armaments and their improvement as constituent part struggle for peace.

The change in the foreign policy of the Soviet state had a positive effect on relations with the West. Expanded contacts with France. Its president, Charles de Gaulle, visited Moscow in the summer of 1966. In 1966-1970. visits by French and Soviet foreign ministers and heads of government continued. Since that time, Soviet-French economic ties began to develop rapidly, cooperation began in the field of the study and exploration of outer space. New President France J. Pompidou and L.I. Brezhnev signed in October 1971 the document "Principles of cooperation between the USSR and France."

After the signing of the Helsinki Final Act, the Soviet Union, feeling like a master in Eastern Europe, began to deploy new medium-range missiles (SS-20) in the GDR and Czechoslovakia, the limitation of which was not provided for by the existing agreements. This provoked a US backlash.

A new round of the arms race has begun. The end of the "discharge" has come. In the United States, work was underway on the "strategic defense initiative" (SDI) program, which provided for the launching of nuclear weapons into space. The crisis of the Soviet economy did not allow to maintain the military balance, there is a trend of technological lag in the production of weapons. The positions of the USSR in the world begin to weaken.

The recognition of real dangers in the nuclear age led the leaders of the superpowers in the early 1970s to revise their policies, to turn from the Cold War to detente, and to cooperate with states with different social systems. The successes of the peace-loving policy were won in the bitter struggle waged by all the progressive forces of mankind since the end of World War II.

The military-strategic parity between the US and the USSR has become a fairly reliable guarantee of peace.

The strategic balance in the conditions of the high level of nuclear potentials of both sides created a guaranteed opportunity for any of them, if it became a victim of nuclear aggression, to save enough funds to deliver a retaliatory strike capable of destroying the aggressor. This situation meant that if an aggressor unleashed a nuclear war, there could be no winner in it, and nuclear aggression was tantamount to suicide. At the same time, strategic equality created certain objective incentives for ending the arms race and reducing and eliminating nuclear weapons. It opened up the possibility of good will on both sides to gradually lower the level of nuclear confrontation while maintaining equality - with strict observance of the principle of equality and equal security. Finally, strategic equality was an important prerequisite for the stability of the international situation and the weakening of political confrontation.

Thus, the equality of the strategic forces of the parties became, as it seemed, a guarantee of peace. Outwardly, everything looked as if the USSR and the USA had equalized their forces in the field of means of aerospace attack and missile defense. But quantitative equality did not yet mean equilibrium. There was no equality of opportunity. The United States and its allies had unilateral advantages in military, economic and technological potential over the USSR and the Warsaw Pact countries.

The fact is that the Soviet Union was increasingly losing dynamism in the economy. “For almost four five-year plans,” it was noted at the February (1988) plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, “we did not have an increase in the absolute growth of national income” (491). The possibility of purchasing advanced technologies in Western countries for the production of products that meet international quality standards (except for the military-industrial complex) was not realized. But all this affected later, in the 80s, and then, in the early 70s, the military-strategic parity achieved was a great achievement for the Soviet Union. This immediately affected the military-political situation in the world.

It was during these years that the relations of the countries of the socialist community with the major states of Western Europe—England, France, the FRG, Italy, and other capitalist states—were strengthened and further developed. In August 1970, a Soviet-West German treaty was concluded, according to which the parties assumed obligations to respect the territorial integrity of all states in Europe, to resolve their disputes by peaceful means, and to refrain from the threat and use of force. Was admitted to the UN by the GDR. Its agreement with the FRG (1971) confirmed the inviolability of the western borders of the GDR. Poland and Czechoslovakia signed agreements with the FRG (Poland - in 1970, Czechoslovakia - in 1973). In September 1971, a quadripartite (USSR, USA, England and France) agreement on West Berlin was signed. Negotiations began on the limitation of strategic arms, on the limitation of nuclear arms in Europe, on the mutual reduction of armed forces and armaments in Central Europe.

As a result of negotiations between the USSR and the USA on the limitation of strategic arms (SALT), which began in November 1969, in Moscow in May 1972, two important agreements were signed between the USSR and the USA: the Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Missile Defense Systems (ABM) and the Interim Agreement between the USSR and the USA on certain measures in the field of limiting strategic offensive arms (in the world press, this agreement received an abbreviated name - SALT-1).

Under the Treaty on the Limitation of ABM Systems, which is of an indefinite nature, the Soviet Union and the United States assumed a number of obligations based on the objective relationship between defensive and offensive strategic weapons.

In signing the Treaty, both sides noted that "effective measures to limit missile defense systems would be a significant factor in curbing the strategic offensive arms race and would lead to a reduction in the danger of a war with the use of nuclear weapons."

A missile defense system, as defined by the Treaty, is a system for combating strategic ballistic missiles or their elements on flight trajectories, currently consisting of interceptor missiles, interceptor missile launchers and missile defense radars (ABM radars).

The listed components of the missile defense system include those in combat condition, under construction, testing, overhaul or maintenance or re-equipment, in conservation.

Article I fixes the obligation of the parties "not to deploy missile defense systems on the territory of their country and not to create the basis for such defense."

Each side was allowed (Article III) to deploy missile defense systems in only two areas:

a) within one district with a radius of 150 kilometers, centered on the capital of that party;

b) within the same area with a radius of 150 kilometers, in which mines are located launchers intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs).

In each area, a limited number of components of missile defense systems (anti-missiles, anti-missile launchers and missile defense radars) are provided. Each side is allowed to have no more than 100 interceptor missiles in one area. In 1974, the USSR and the USA signed a protocol to the Treaty, according to which the number of areas for deploying missile defense systems of each side was reduced to one.

According to Article V, the parties undertake "not to create, test or deploy sea, air, space or mobile ground-based missile defense systems or components."

The USSR and the USA undertook not to transfer to other states and not to place outside their national territory missile defense systems or their components limited by the Treaty (Article IX). The fulfillment of contractual obligations must be controlled by national technical means, in compliance with the generally recognized norms of international law.

It is also important to note that Article XI contains the obligation of the USSR and the USA “to continue active negotiations on the limitation of strategic arms, and Article XIII provides that the parties must “consider, as necessary, possible proposals for further enhancing the viability of this Treaty...” -American Treaty on the Limitation of Anti-Ballistic Missile Systems (ABM), signed on May 26, 1972, entered into force on October 3 of the same year.

Another agreement (SALT-1), concluded for a period of 5 years, imposed certain quantitative and qualitative restrictions on stationary launchers of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs), launchers of ballistic missiles on submarines (SLBMs) and submarines themselves with ballistic missiles.

However, the widespread recognition on an international scale of the principle of peaceful coexistence of states with different social systems caused increasing opposition from certain forces in the United States. Strategic parity with the Soviet Union did not suit some US political and military circles. “The Americans,” wrote the well-known journalist J. Chase, “have always been in search of invulnerability. American leaders, whether by doctrine ... or by military systems, or simply by reliance on geography, have worked tirelessly to achieve a level of security that would be absolute” (492).

When military-strategic parity became a fact, Washington unconditionally regarded it as exemplary equality in terms of quantitative parameters. But what was the approximate equality in terms of the number of means of delivering nuclear weapons to strike targets, as well as in terms of ground forces in Europe? If the ATS countries had superiority in tanks, then the NATO countries had an advantage in anti-tank weapons and aviation. Both sides could inflict "unacceptable damage" on each other in the event of a nuclear war. There has come "equality of fear" on the basis of mutually assured destruction. But this equality did not mean equality of opportunity. And this will have an impact in the future. However, then, in the early 70s, this was a significant achievement of the Soviet Union. He became a full-fledged superpower, and nuclear missile weapons from the "weapon of victory" in the war nuclear powers turned into a political weapon of a special kind - a weapon to deter a global nuclear catastrophe.

It was a world-historic victory Soviet weapons, Soviet military-technical thought, Soviet politics in the twentieth century. If the Soviet Union played a decisive role in the defeat of fascism in World War II, then, having achieved military-strategic parity with the United States, it made a decisive contribution to creating an environment of equal security for the parties in the current bipolar world. A process of dialogue has begun between the superpowers and their allies on arms control, their limitation and, in the future, their reduction.

Beginning in 1973, there was an independent negotiation process between representatives of NATO and the Warsaw Pact on the reduction of armaments. However, the desired success was not achieved here because of the tough position of the Warsaw Pact countries, which surpassed NATO in conventional weapons and did not want to reduce them.

After the signing of the Helsinki Final Act, the Soviet Union felt like a master in Eastern Europe and began to install new SS-20 medium-range missiles in the GDR and Czechoslovakia, the restriction on which was not provided for by the SALT agreements. In the context of the human rights campaign in the USSR, sharply intensified in the West after Helsinki, the position of the USSR became extremely tough. This provoked retaliation from the United States, which, after Congress refused to ratify SALT-2 in the early 1980s, deployed "cruise missiles" and Pershing missiles in Western Europe capable of reaching the territory of the Soviet Union. Thus, a military-strategic balance was established between the blocs in Europe.

The arms race had an extremely negative impact on the country's economy, the military-industrial orientation of which did not decrease. The general extensive development increasingly affected the defense industry. The parity with the United States achieved in the early 1970s concerned primarily intercontinental ballistic missiles. Since the late 1970s, the general crisis of the Soviet economy began to have a negative impact on the defense industry. The Soviet Union began to lag behind certain types weapons. This came to light after the introduction of "cruise missiles" in the US and became even more evident after the start of the US work on the "strategic defense initiative" (SDI) program. Since the mid-1980s, the leadership of the USSR has been clearly aware of this lag. The exhaustion of the economic possibilities of the regime is revealed more and more fully..

Help " developing countries"

The second, no less significant, source of the country's ruin is constant assistance to "developing countries." In essence, this assistance covered all areas: the Soviet military and civilian specialists, huge soft long-term loans were given, cheap weapons and raw materials were supplied. A huge number of foreign students studied in the USSR. Large-scale capital construction in the "third world" has also been developed. Only in the years of the ninth five-year plan (1971-1975), with the help of the USSR, about 900 industrial facilities were built in the "liberated countries". With rare exceptions, so far no one is going to return these Soviet loans, but to thank for the "help".

The USSR, which sharply intensified in the West after Helsinki, the position of the USSR became extremely tough. This provoked retaliation from the United States, which, after Congress refused to ratify SALT-2 in the early 1980s, deployed "cruise missiles" and Pershing missiles in Western Europe capable of reaching the territory of the Soviet Union. Thus, between the blocs on the territory of Europe, amilitary-strategic balance .

The arms race had an extremely negative impact on the country's economy, the military-industrial orientation of which did not decrease. The general extensive development increasingly affected the defense industry. The parity with the United States achieved in the early 1970s concerned primarily intercontinental ballistic missiles. Since the late 1970s, the general crisis of the Soviet economy began to have a negative impact on the defense industry. The Soviet Union began to gradually lag behind in certain types of weapons. This came to light after the introduction of "cruise missiles" in the US and became even more evident after the start of the US work on the "strategic defense initiative" (SDI) program. Since the mid-1980s, the leadership of the USSR has been clearly aware of this lag.

The depletion of the economic possibilities of the regime is revealed more and more fully.

Aid to "developing countries"

The second, no less significant, source of the country's ruin is constant assistance to "developing countries." In essence, this assistance covered all spheres: Soviet military and civilian specialists were sent to work, huge concessional long-term loans were given, and cheap weapons and raw materials were supplied. A huge number of foreign students studied in the USSR. Large-scale capital construction in the "third world" has also been developed. Only in the years of the ninth five-year plan (1971-1975), with the help of the USSR, about 900 industrial facilities were built in the "liberated countries". With rare exceptions, so far no one is going to return these Soviet loans, but to thank for the "help".

The international situation and the internal situation in the USSR

The international situation had a direct impact on the internal situation in the country. The policy of detente had a beneficial effect on the development of East-West cooperation. During these years, the total trade turnover increased 5 times, and the Soviet-American 8 times. The strategy of cooperation during this period was reduced to the conclusion of large contracts with Western firms for the construction of factories or the purchase of technology. So, the most famous example of such cooperation was the construction at the end of 1960

In the early 1970s, the Volga Automobile Plant, under a joint agreement with by an Italian company"Fiat". However, this was more of an exception than the rule. Basically, international programs were limited to fruitless business trips of delegations