Which states were part of the Cold War. red nato

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction

1. A brief history of the creation of NATO

2. Functions and composition of NATO

3. Prerequisites for the creation of the Department of Internal Affairs

4. The essence and purpose of the Treaty

5. Warsaw Pact

6. Activities of the Department of Internal Affairs

7. The collapse of the ATS

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introductionenenie

The creation and development of military blocs became the most important part of the policy that the USSR, the USA and the Western European states (Great Britain and France) began to pursue for the first time in the post-war years, and which went down in the history of international relations as the Cold War. Organization of the North Atlantic Alliance (NATO). The global confrontation between the two superpowers - the USSR and the USA and the confrontation between the two military-political blocs - the Warsaw Pact Organization (WTS) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) began

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is the birthplace of the Cold War. Having defeated the Nazi troops, the Red Army went down in history as the most powerful military force, which had no equal in the world at that time, and was not foreseen in the near future. The former allies of the USSR in World War II considered that such a military machine, which also acquired atomic weapons, could reach the English Channel, and that it was precisely such goals that the Soviet leadership secretly endured. Even despite the fact that the Union was in ruins, the whole country was working to restore the economy, and the very idea of military action disgusted the state, which lost more than 30 million people in the war, the Western countries still decided to create a military bloc, which was supposed to become counterweight to the invincible Red Army.

So, in April 1949 in Washington, 12 countries - the USA, Canada, Great Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, Italy and Portugal - announced the creation of a single military organization, which was designed to coordinate the actions of the armies of the countries - participants, and thus guarantee their support in the proposed war with the USSR.

By the way, the Soviet Union also filed an official application for membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. This was in March 1954. And this was one of the most important attempts made by the USSR to turn the bloc's activities into a peaceful direction. As stated in the report of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU, if this scenario were implemented, “the North Atlantic Treaty Organization would cease to be a closed military grouping of states, it would be open for accession by other European countries, which, along with the creation of an effective system of collective security in Europe, would be of paramount importance for strengthening the overall peace." But NATO showed the Union the door, answering: “... There is no need to emphasize the absolutely unrealistic nature of such a proposal. It contradicts the very principles on which the defense and security system of Western states is built…” Everything is logical. With the appearance of the Soviet state as part of the North Atlantic Alliance, this military bloc would lose its main essence and goal, which was formulated back in 1949 by the first NATO Secretary General, Lord Ismay: "to keep the United States in Europe, Germany under control, and Russia outside of Europe."

A year later, in May 1955, under the auspices of the Soviet Union, the Warsaw Pact Organization (OVD) was created, which united all the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (only Yugoslavia was not included in the Warsaw Pact). The Warsaw bloc was formed solely in opposition to NATO, and it was a forced defensive step. The WTS, together with the previously organized Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, which included the allied countries of the USSR, as well as some Asian states and Cuba, constituted the second pole of the bipolar world system.

Until the end of the 80s, when the great empire of the Soviet Union began to burst at the seams, the rivalry between NATO and the Warsaw Pact was fairly even. The alliance escalated the arms race, the Soviets had to do the same in order to contain the aggression of the military bloc and ensure the security of the country and friendly states. The USSR and the USA became monopolists in terms of the number of accumulated and improved nuclear weapons. Throughout the Cold War, relations between the superpowers were characterized by alternating stages of deterioration and improvement in relations. The deterioration led to a number of regional conflicts, but, in general, the bipolar system has evolved towards greater security, as evidenced by the creation of the United Nations, as well as a series of Soviet-American treaties on the limitation of strategic arms.

1. A brief history of the creation of NATO

The military-political prerequisites for this alliance in Europe were outlined in the "Truman Doctrine", proclaimed by the American President on March 12, 1947. Then, in his special message to Congress, H. Truman came up with the idea of "anti-communism", according to which it was planned to spread the "American way of life" to the whole world and establish "the hegemony of American imperialism" by means of an offensive against socialism.

A series of events in 1947-49. exacerbated the international situation. These include threats to the sovereignty of Norway, Greece, Turkey, the coup in 1948 in Czechoslovakia and the blockade of West Berlin. By signing the Brussels Treaty in March 1948, five Western European countries - Belgium, Great Britain, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and France - created a common defense system.

The Truman Doctrine reflected the evolution of American expansionism from the formula "America for Americans" ("Monroe Doctrine") to the formula "Not only America, but the whole world for Americans" ("Truman Doctrine"). Senator Vanderberg bluntly stated after Truman's speech that assistance to Greece and Turkey opens a "new era" in US foreign relations, marking the transition to a new American policy around the world.

The economic foundations for the creation of the NATO bloc were laid by the "Marshall Plan", which was called "the first step in building the North Atlantic community." On June 5, 1947, US Secretary of State J. Marshall delivered a speech to students at Harvard University, in which, without fixing any specific US obligations, he promised "friendly assistance" to the countries of Europe if they jointly developed a "mutual assistance" plan and submitted it for approval United States.

The emergence of the plan was directly due to the economic situation faced by the United States after the Second World War. The growth of US foreign trade expansion in Western Europe and other capitalist countries, especially intensified as a result of the elimination of German and Japanese competition and the general weakening of other capitalist countries, led to a sharp excess of US exports over imports. During the three post-war years, the gold and dollar reserves of 16 European countries, subsequently included in the orbit of the Marshall Plan, decreased by more than $3 billion. As a result, there was a real threat of a sharp decline in American foreign trade, which could lead to a deterioration in the overall economic situation of the United States and hastened the maturing of the economic crisis: “American exports to Europe will sharply decrease ... if Congress does not support the new government bailout program.” The Labor government of Great Britain and the socialist government in France strongly supported this American plan.

In 1952, Greece and Turkey joined the North Atlantic Treaty. The Federal Republic of Germany joined the alliance in 1955, and in 1982 Spain also became a member of NATO. In 1999, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland joined NATO. 2004 - Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania,

Estonia, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia. In 1967, as a result of an internal crisis over the creation of the NATO Nuclear Directorate, France withdrew from the military organization of the Alliance, while remaining a full member of NATO. Thus, today the Alliance has 26 members.

NATO's main goal is to guarantee the freedom and security of all its members in Europe and North America, in accordance with the principles of the UN Charter. To achieve this goal, NATO uses its political influence and military capabilities in accordance with the nature of the security challenges faced by its member states.

Be the basis of stability in the Euro-Atlantic region;

Serve as a forum for consultation on security issues;

To exercise deterrence and protection against any threat of aggression against any of the NATO member states;

Contribute to effective conflict prevention and actively participate in crisis management;

To promote the development of comprehensive partnership, cooperation and dialogue with other countries of the Euro-Atlantic region.

2. Functions and composition of NATO

NATO is an intergovernmental organization with no supranational functions. It can only do what none of its members object to. As an intergovernmental structure, it has at its disposal a very small number of military and civilian personnel - approximately 12 thousand people. This is less than the total number of diplomatic workers in national missions to NATO. In terms of the level of administrative workload, that is, the ratio of the number of people working for NATO as an organization to the number of people that determine NATO's activities in national governments and diplomatic missions, NATO is a very efficient organization. For comparison: in the central bodies of the EU, only the number of translators is about 10 thousand people.

NATO's main decisions are prepared and adopted in committees, which are made up of members of national delegations. This is the core of the Alliance as an international club. The work of the inter-national committees is supported by a civilian staff (international officials) who report to the Secretary General and an integrated command structure which is managed by the NATO Military Committee. Rather accurate is the definition of NATO as an international club with military tools. At the same time, the proportion of military forces that, in the event of war, must be transferred under general command, is significantly inferior to the number of forces remaining under national control. In peacetime, the number of military forces subordinate to the central command is negligible - only a few thousand military. The same can be said about the overall budgets - they are meager compared to the total volume of military spending of the member countries.

Like any club, NATO has no politics, only membership rules. What is perceived as NATO policy is nothing more than the resultant policy of the member countries. It makes no practical sense to analyze and predict this conditional policy without analyzing and forecasting the policy of individual members of the Alliance.

Below is information about the main building blocks of NATO.

North Atlantic Council (SAS) has real political power and decision-making rights. It consists of the Permanent Representatives of all Member States, who meet at least once a week. Sessions of the NATO Council are also held at higher levels - foreign ministers, defense ministers or heads of government, but its powers and decision-making rights remain the same, and decisions have the same status and legal force regardless of the level of representation.

Each government is represented on the North Atlantic Council by a permanent representative with the rank of ambassador. All permanent representatives rely in their work on political and military personnel or staff of the mission to NATO, the number of which may vary from country to country.

The meeting of the NATO Council of Permanent Representatives is often referred to as the “Permanent Session of the North Atlantic Council”. Twice a year, and sometimes more frequently, there are meetings of the North Atlantic Council at ministerial level, with each NATO country represented by a Minister for Foreign Affairs.

High-level meetings with the participation of heads of state and government (summits) are held when it is necessary to resolve particularly important issues or at turning points in the development of NATO

Permanent Representatives act according to instructions from their capitals, communicating and explaining to their colleagues in the NATO Council the views and political decisions of their governments. In addition, they report to the leadership of their countries about the points of view and positions of other governments, report on new events, the process of building consensus on certain important issues or differences in the positions of individual countries in some areas.

Decisions on any actions are made on the basis of unity of opinion and common consent. NATO does not have voting or majority voting procedures. Each country represented at meetings of the NATO Council or on any of its subordinate committees remains fully independent and fully responsible for its decisions.

The Council's work is prepared by subordinate committees responsible for specific policy areas.

Defense Planning Committee (KVP) usually works as a permanent representative, but at least twice a year it meets at the level of defense ministers. It deals with most military issues and tasks related to collective defense planning. All member states of the Alliance are represented on this committee, with the exception of France. The Defense Planning Committee guides the activities of NATO's governing military bodies. Within its area of responsibility, it performs the same functions and has the same rights and powers as the North Atlantic Council. The work of the Defense Planning Committee is prepared by a number of subordinate committees with specific areas of responsibility.

NATO Defense Ministers who participate in the Defense Planning Committee meet regularly as part of the Nuclear planning groups (NSG), where they discuss specific policy issues related to nuclear forces. These meetings cover a wide range of nuclear weapons policy issues, including the safety, security and survivability of nuclear weapons, communications and information systems, deployment of nuclear forces, as well as broader issues of common concern such as nuclear weapons control. and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. The work of the Nuclear Planning Group is supported by the NSG headquarters group.

The work of these committees is supported by a variety of subsidiary structures.

Permanent Representatives and National Delegations. Each NATO country is represented on the North Atlantic Council by an ambassador or permanent representative who is supported by a national delegation of advisers and officials who represent their country on various NATO committees. These delegations are a lot like small embassies. The fact that they are located in the same Headquarters building allows them to communicate easily and quickly, formally and informally, with each other, as well as with members of NATO's international secretariats and representatives of partner countries.

NATO Secretary General is a prominent international statesman who has been entrusted by the governments of NATO member states to chair the North Atlantic Council, the Defense Planning Committee and the Nuclear Planning Group, as well as the nominal chairman of other major NATO committees. He is the Secretary General and Chief Executive Officer of NATO. In addition, the Secretary General is the Chairman of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council and the Mediterranean Cooperation Group, Co-Chair (together with the representative of Russia and the representative of the NATO country, acting honorary chairman) of the NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council. He also co-chairs, with Ukraine's representative, the NATO-Ukraine Commission.

International Secretariat. The work of the North Atlantic Council and its subordinate committees is carried out with the help of the International Secretariat. It is composed of staff from various member states, recruited directly by NATO or seconded by the respective governments. Members of the International Secretariat report to the Secretary General of NATO and remain loyal to the organization throughout their tenure.

Military Committee is responsible for the planning of collective military operations and holds regular meetings at the level of Chiefs of General Staffs (CHOS). Iceland, which has no armed forces, is represented at such meetings by a civilian official. France has a special representative. The Committee is NATO's highest military body, operating under the overall political direction of the North Atlantic Council, the STOC and the NSG.

The day-to-day work of the Military Committee is conducted by military representatives acting on behalf of their chiefs of general staff. The military representatives have sufficient authority to enable the Military Committee to carry out its collective tasks and make decisions promptly.

The military committee at the level of chiefs of general staffs (CHSH) usually meets three times a year. Two of these Military Committee meetings are held in Brussels and one is held on a rotating basis in other NATO countries.

International military headquarters (IMS) is headed by a general or admiral who is selected by the Military Committee from candidates nominated by NATO member states for the post of Chief of the International Military Staff (IMS). Under his leadership, the IMS is responsible for planning and evaluating policy on military issues and making appropriate recommendations for consideration by the Military Committee. It also oversees the proper implementation of the policies and decisions of the Military Committee.

command structure. The new command structure includes two strategic-level military commands. The first is the Allied Command Operation (ACO), to which all operational commands are subordinate, located at the headquarters of the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe near the city of Mons and is responsible for operational activities. The Joint Operations Command is developing requirements for short-term operations. At the operational level, there are two permanent Joint Force Commands (JFCs) in Italy and the Netherlands, which form the ground headquarters of the Multinational Joint Task Force (JFC). There is also a smaller but highly effective permanent Joint Headquarters in Portugal (JHQ) which can serve as the basis for the establishment of MEP Naval Headquarters. On a tactical equal of thirteen, six headquarters are retained, designed to manage large mixed formations.

The second is the Allied Command for Transformation, the Combined Joint Task Force (ACT), which was created to replace the headquarters of the Supreme Allied Commander in the Atlantic, is responsible for the functional reorganization of the Alliance. It will focus on long-term force generation. The focus will be on enhancing the interoperability of NATO forces and gradually closing the transatlantic gap in capabilities through the exchange of the latest developments and research results in the field of new concepts of warfare. NATO Transformation Commands will develop concepts and doctrines, prepare and conduct experiments, determine the requirements for the armed forces in the future, oversee military education and combat training, and develop and evaluate requirements for the interaction of subsections and their reorganization. Transformation Commands will become a means of synchronization within national programs and development of the armed forces towards the creation of more effective joint combat structures and will promote increased interaction, which ultimately can ensure the reliable and flexible implementation of new tasks in conducting coalition actions to counter new threats.

3. Prerequisites for the formation of ATS

After the Second World War, the two great powers, the USSR and the USA, proved to be the most powerful militarily and economically and acquired the greatest influence in the world. As the deadly threat of fascism, which united the world, disappeared, the initial contradictions between the anti-Hitler alliance and the geopolitical interests of the powers led to the collapse of the coalition and to a new split into hostile blocs. The incompleteness and inconsistency of the cardinal shifts in the balance of power that occurred after the war, the instability of their new balance, pushed the great powers to incline it to their side.

The USA and the USSR adopted the theory of a bipolar world and embarked on the path of tough confrontation. An influential American journalist then called the conflicts between these countries the “cold war”. The press picked up this phrase, and it became the designation of the entire period of international politics until the end of the 80s. The Cold War was characterized by two major features: an arms race and a split in the world and Europe.

Warsaw Pact 1955 on Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance, signed by Albania (1968 - withdrew), Bulgaria, Hungary, East Germany, Poland, Romania, the USSR and Czechoslovakia on May 14, 1955 at the Warsaw Conference of European States to ensure peace and security in Europe - after 6 years after the formation of NATO. However, cooperation between the countries of the socialist camp existed long before that: after the Second World War in the countries of Eastern Europe, governments led by the communists came to power, this was partly due to the fact that after that Soviet troops remained in Eastern Europe, creating a psychological background. Prior to the formation of the Department of Internal Affairs, relations between the states of the socialist system were built on the basis of treaties of friendship and cooperation. In 1949, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance was established (an intergovernmental economic organization was created to promote the development of the CMEA member countries), which initially included the USSR, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Czechoslovakia, and then a number of other countries.

In connection with some distortions in relations between the USSR and its allies in Eastern Europe after March 1953, signs of mass discontent appeared in some countries of the socialist camp. There were strikes and demonstrations in some cities of Czechoslovakia, and the situation in Hungary worsened. The most serious unrest was in June 1953 in the GDR, where strikes and demonstrations caused by the deteriorating living standards of the population brought the country to the brink of a general strike. The Soviet government was forced to bring tanks into the GDR, which, with the help of the police, suppressed the protests of the workers. After the death of I.V. Stalin, the new Soviet leadership made a number of trips abroad, with the aim of negotiations and personal acquaintance with the leaders of the social. countries. As a result of these trips, in 1955, the Warsaw Pact organization was formed, which included almost all the countries of Eastern Europe, except for Yugoslavia, which traditionally adhered to a policy of non-alignment. The conclusion of the Warsaw Pact was caused by the threat to peace in Europe created by the ratification by the Western states of the Paris Agreements of 1954, which provided for the formation of the Western European Union, the remilitarization of West Germany and its inclusion in NATO.

4. The essence and objectives of the Treaty

At a meeting on May 11-14, 1955, it was also decided to create a Joint Command of the Armed Forces of the States Parties to the Treaty. This decision provided that general questions relating to the strengthening of defense capabilities and to the organization of the Joint Armed Forces (JAF) of the member states of the Treaty were subject to consideration by the Political Consultative Committee, which would apply the appropriate decisions. The treaty consisted of 11 preambles and articles. In accordance with its terms and the UN Charter, the Warsaw Pact member states pledged to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force, and in the event of an armed attack on any of them, to provide immediate assistance to the attacked states by all means that seem necessary to them. including the use of armed forces. The members of the Warsaw Pact Organization pledged to act in the spirit of friendship and cooperation in order to further develop and strengthen economic and cultural ties among themselves, following the principles of mutual respect for independence, sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of each other and other states. The term of the Warsaw Pact is 20 years with an automatic extension for 10 years for those states that, a year before the expiration of the term, do not submit to the government of Poland a statement on the denunciation of the Warsaw Pact. It is open to the accession of other states, regardless of their social and political system. The Warsaw Pact will lose its force if a system of collective security is created in Europe and a pan-European treaty is concluded for this purpose. concept organization Warsaw Pact

The ATS clearly defined its goals:

Coordination of foreign policy efforts in the struggle for joint security of the participating states, for the preservation and strengthening of peace and security in Europe and throughout the world;

Cooperation of the participating states in the field of defense for the joint defense of their sovereignty and independence, the most effective rebuff to any aggressive attempts of imperialism.

In essence, the Warsaw Pact legalized the presence of Soviet troops in member countries, tk. they practically did not have heavy weapons, and the USSR thereby secured its western borders.

5. Warsaw Pact

Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance between the People's Republic of Albania, the People's Republic of Bulgaria, the People's Republic of Hungary, the German Democratic Republic, the People's Republic of Poland, the Romanian People's Republic, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the Czechoslovak Republic.

Contracting parties,

Reaffirming their desire to create a system of collective security in Europe based on the participation in it of all European states, regardless of their social and political system, which would allow them to unite their efforts in the interests of ensuring peace in Europe,

considering at the same time the situation that has been created in Europe as a result of the ratification of the Paris agreements, which provide for the formation of a new military grouping in the form of a "Western European Union" with the participation of the remilitarized West Germany and its inclusion in the North Atlantic bloc, which increases the danger of a new war and creates a threat to national security peace-loving states

Convinced that under these conditions the peace-loving states of Europe must take the necessary measures to ensure their security and in the interest of maintaining peace in Europe,

Guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

in the interests of further strengthening and developing friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance in accordance with the principles of respect for the independence and sovereignty of states, as well as non-interference in their internal affairs,

Have decided to conclude this Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance and have appointed as their Plenipotentiaries:

Presidium of the People's Assembly of the People's Republic of Albania - Mahmet Shehu, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the People's Republic of Albania,

Presidium of the People's Assembly of the People's Republic of Bulgaria - Vilko Chervenkov, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the People's Republic of Bulgaria,

Presidium of the People's Republic of Hungary - Andras Hegedus, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the People's Republic of Hungary,

President of the German Democratic Republic - Otto Grotewohl, Prime Minister of the German Democratic Republic,

State Council of the Polish People's Republic - Jozef Cyrankiewicz, Chairman of the Polish People's Republic,

Presidium of the Grand National Assembly of the Romanian People's Republic - Gheorghe Gheorghiu-Dej, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the Romanian People's Republic,

Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - Nikolai Alexandrovich Bulganin, Chairman of the Council of Ministers of the USSR,

President of the Czechoslovak Republic - William Shiroky, Prime Minister of the Czechoslovak Republic,

who, having submitted their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows:

Article 1

The Contracting Parties undertake, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force and to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a way as not to jeopardize international peace and security.

Article 2

The Contracting Parties declare their readiness to participate in a spirit of sincere cooperation in all international actions aimed at ensuring international peace and security, and will devote their entire efforts to the implementation of these goals.

At the same time, the Contracting Parties will seek the adoption, by agreement with other states that wish to cooperate in this matter, of effective measures for the general reduction of armaments and the prohibition of atomic, hydrogen and other types of weapons of mass destruction.

Article 3

The Contracting Parties will consult among themselves on all important international issues affecting their common interests, guided by the interests of strengthening international peace and security.

They will consult without delay among themselves whenever, in the opinion of any of them, there is a threat of armed attack against one or more of the States Parties to the Treaty, in the interests of ensuring joint defense and maintaining peace and security.

Article 4

In the event of an armed attack in Europe against one or more States Parties to the Treaty by any State or group of States, each State Party to the Treaty, in exercising the right to individual or collective self-defence, in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will to the State or States subjected to such attack, immediate assistance, individually and in agreement with other States Parties to the Treaty, by all means that it deems necessary, including the use of armed force. The States Parties to the Treaty will immediately consult on joint measures to be taken in order to restore and maintain international peace and security.

Action taken under this Article shall be reported to the Security Council in accordance with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations. These measures will be terminated as soon as the Security Council takes the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

Article 5

The Contracting Parties have agreed on the creation of a Joint Command of their armed forces, which will be allocated by agreement between the Parties to the jurisdiction of this Command, acting on the basis of jointly established principles. They will also take other agreed measures necessary to strengthen their defense capabilities in order to protect the peaceful labor of their peoples, guarantee the inviolability of their borders and territories and ensure protection against possible aggression.

Article 6

In order to carry out the consultations provided for by this Treaty between the States Parties to the Treaty and to consider issues arising in connection with the implementation of this Treaty, a Political Consultative Committee is created, in which each State Party to the Treaty will be represented by a member of the Government or another specially appointed representative.

The Committee may establish subsidiary bodies as deemed necessary.

Article 7

The Contracting Parties undertake not to take part in any coalitions or alliances and not to conclude any agreements, the purposes of which contradict the purposes of this Treaty.

The Contracting Parties declare that their obligations under existing international treaties do not conflict with the provisions of this Treaty.

Article 8

The Contracting Parties declare that they will act in the spirit of friendship and cooperation for the further development and strengthening of economic and cultural ties between them, following the principles of mutual respect for their independence and sovereignty and non-interference in their internal affairs.

Article 9

This Treaty is open for accession by other states, regardless of their social and state system, which will express their readiness through participation in this Treaty to contribute to the unification of the efforts of peace-loving states in order to ensure the peace and security of peoples. Such accession will enter into force with the consent of the States Parties to the Treaty after the instrument of accession is deposited with the Government of the Polish People's Republic.

Article 10

This Treaty is subject to ratification, and the instruments of ratification will be deposited with the Government of the Polish People's Republic.

The Treaty will enter into force on the date of deposit of the last instrument of ratification. The Government of the Polish People's Republic will inform the other states parties to the Treaty on the deposit of each instrument of ratification.

Article 11

This Treaty shall remain in force for twenty years. For Contracting Parties which, one year before the expiration of this period, do not submit to the Government of the Polish People's Republic a declaration of denunciation of the Treaty, it will remain in force for the next ten years.

If a system of collective security is created in Europe and a Pan-European Collective Security Treaty is concluded for this purpose, to which the Contracting Parties will steadily strive, this Treaty will lose its force from the day the Pan-European Treaty comes into force.

Done at Warsaw on May 14, 1955, in a single copy in the Russian, Polish, Czech and German languages, all texts being equally authentic. Certified copies of this Agreement will be sent by the Government of the Polish People's Republic to all other parties to the Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Plenipotentiaries have signed this Treaty and have affixed their seals thereto.

6 . deyaATS efficiency

Of the conflicts of the Warsaw Treaty Organization (USSR) with NATO (USA), two of the most important ones that almost led the world to the Third World War should be noted: the Berlin and Caribbean crises.

The Berlin crisis of 1959-1962 was caused by the exodus of East Germans to West Berlin. To stop these riots, in just one night, the Berlin Wall was erected around West Berlin. Checkpoints were set up at the border. The construction of the wall caused even more tension, which led to the appearance of crowds near these points, wishing to leave the Soviet sector of Berlin. Soon at the Brandenburg Gate, at the main checkpoints, Soviet and American tanks concentrated. The Soviet-American confrontation ended with the withdrawal of Soviet tanks from these borders.

The Caribbean crisis erupted in 1962 and brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. It all started with the fact that the United States placed its missile base in Turkey. In response to this, the USSR secretly deployed its medium-range missiles in Cuba. In the United States, learning about this, a real panic began. The actions of the USSR were regarded as preparation for war. The conflict was resolved with the withdrawal of Soviet missiles from Cuba, American missiles from Turkey, and the US commitment not to resort to any action against Cuba.

Inside the Warsaw Pact itself, in addition to the Berlin one, there were other crises caused by the desire of the socialist countries of Eastern Europe for a better life and liberation from Soviet influence: the uprising in Hungary (1956, Operation Whirlwind), suppressed by Soviet tanks and reform attempts in Czechoslovakia “Prague spring” (1968, operation “Danube”), also suppressed by the introduction of troops of five neighboring socialist states into Czechoslovakia.

The Afghan war of 1979-1989 should also be noted. In 1978, as a result of a military coup, a government came to power in Afghanistan with the goal of building socialism in the country along the lines of the USSR. This caused widespread discontent in the country, and then Afghan President Amin asked the USSR for military assistance. A "limited contingent" of Soviet troops was introduced into Afghanistan. The Afghan war lasted 10 years and ended in failure. The outbreak of this war caused a wide wave of criticism. The USSR found itself in international isolation, and protests began to grow inside the country.

7. The collapse of the ATS

With the beginning of perestroika in the USSR, the entire foreign policy of the country changed. The Soviet Union began to declare its adherence to the principles of collective security and respect for the sovereign right of peoples to choose the path of development. The USSR did not interfere with the peaceful (“velvet”) revolutions of 1989-1990 in the countries of Eastern Europe. On November 8, 1989, the Berlin Wall fell and the Brandenburg Gate opened. In 1990, the unification of Germany took place, although it meant the liquidation of the GDR, a former staunch Soviet ally.

The engine of the collapse of the Soviet military empire was the three states of Central Europe - Poland, Hungary and East Germany. Budapest Protocol 1991 drew a line under the existence of the military organization of the Warsaw Pact. Representatives of Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Romania left their Moscow residences.

June 30, 1991 was the last meeting of the heads of state and government, who signed the final document on the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, which lasted 36 years. From 1991 to 1994, a gradual withdrawal of Soviet troops from Czechoslovakia, Hungary, East Germany and Poland began. Thus, the final point was put in the history of the Warsaw Pact.

In December 1991, the leaders of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus (the founding countries of the USSR) announced the termination of the Union Treaty of 1922 and signed documents on the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States. The collapse of the USSR marked the end of the Cold War.

Conclusion

Back in 1946, in the American Fulton, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill burst into an angry speech against the USSR. The prime minister's tone is clear - Great Britain needs to comprehensively strengthen relations with the US nuclear power in order to resist the "red bear". But of particular interest was the section in which Churchill touched on the portrait of potential friends of future NATO members. According to the Briton, Britain and the United States, as well as their allies, should develop friendly relations, first of all, with those countries whose citizens speak English well.

Well, today Russia speaks perfect English, it is ready to cooperate in disarmament issues, combating terrorism, and many other important aspects of the modern world. But the West is not ready for this. In the Pentagon's rankings, Russia is still listed in the countries that America used to bitingly call the "Axis of Evil." But if you look at all the modern operations of the North Atlantic Alliance, sum up the number of civilians killed and injured during these "peacekeeping wars", count the number of destroyed cities, broken destinies of entire peoples, a legitimate question arises - who can actually be called the "Axis of Evil" today "? Without a doubt, this is NATO, and the United States of America standing behind the aggressive-offensive bloc. As they say, nothing personal - just numbers ...

The confrontation between the two largest military-political blocs - NATO and the Warsaw Pact ended with the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. The collapse was not caused by a military defeat, but by internal conflicts and the state of the Soviet economy, which for many years supported the socialist countries and the entire Soviet army of many millions. The foreign policy of the Soviet Union during the “perestroika” period did not interfere with its disintegration. Former member states of the Warsaw Treaty Organization hastened to join NATO and demanded to ensure their protection. A gradual withdrawal of Soviet troops from these countries began. But even now, yesterday's Treaty allies and some of the former republics of the USSR have a negative attitude towards Russia.

But still, the Warsaw Pact fulfilled its main tasks - ensuring the protection of the states parties to the Treaty and peace in Europe. Despite all the tension in world politics in the second half of the 20th century, a new war was avoided.

Currently, NATO does not have a sufficiently strong political and military counterbalance in the world and, therefore, it is practically unlimited in its actions, which is clearly seen in the Balkan crisis, the events in Macedonia and the war in Iraq.

Bibliography

“Actual problems of the activities of international organizations” - A.N. Kalyadin, Markushina, Morozov. M: International relations, 1982.

“Warsaw Pact and NATO: Two Courses, Two Policies” - S.A. Vladimirov, L. Teplov. M: International relations, 1979.

“Warsaw meeting of European states to ensure peace and security in Europe” - M: Gospolitizdat, 1955.

“History of Russia from ancient times to the end of the 20th century” - A.S. Senyavsky, A.A. Danilov, V.P. Naumov. M: Bustard, 2002

“Recent history. 20th century” - A.A. Kreder, M: CGO, 1996.

http://www.anti-nato.com/istoriya-nato/istoriya-nato.html

http://www.db.niss.gov.ua/docs/natoD/UANATO-FAQ.htm

Hosted on Allbest.ru

Containment in Europe

III. In my study of containment in Europe, I will address two questions

A. First, why should we believe that the containment of the Soviet Union will prevent the possibility of its attack on NATO?
1. The answer to this question lies mainly in Moscow's desire to avoid the great risk of escalating even a limited military conflict into a full-scale nuclear war. Such a war is capable of inflicting unacceptable destruction on the USSR. Such a war may or may not be accompanied by US nuclear retaliation. France and Great Britain also possess sufficient nuclear strike forces to destroy dozens of the largest Soviet cities.

a. During the Khrushchev era, Soviet military strategists assumed that any war between East and West would either start with a massive nuclear exchange or quickly escalate into a nuclear war. The Soviets now believe that the nature of nuclear war has changed over the past 10 years, largely due to changes in NATO's nuclear doctrine.
(1) In the mid-1960s, NATO moved from a nuclear triad doctrine to a "flexible response" doctrine, in which the use of nuclear weapons is delayed until conventional weapons are insufficient.

b. By the end of the 1960s, the Soviets became convinced that the war in Europe was likely to be fought initially with conventional rather than nuclear weapons, and they began to reorganize their general military forces in order to increase their effectiveness.

c. However, the Soviets are still confident that a rapid escalation of nuclear war is likely once NATO uses nuclear weapons, even in very limited numbers. This makes it necessary to maintain containment.

2. We also know that the Soviets have not yet fully decided on the conduct of the war in Europe.

They are held back by NATO ground and air forces, especially West German and US forces.
- They are impressed by NATO's ability to quickly deploy their forces on alert (probably West Germany's mobilization capacity is of particular concern).
- They are not confident in the reliability of their Eastern European allies.

3. Another factor is that over the past six years the leaders of the Soviets have pursued a line of achieving their goals by peaceful means - as evidenced by their policy of détente towards Europe.

4. In addition, the Kremlin is concerned about the prospects for a war on two fronts. They, to put it mildly, do not trust China.

B. The second question is: what is the nature of the military "balance"?

1. The most common considerations include that the GNP of NATO countries is almost three times that of the Warsaw Pact countries, and that NATO has a 54 percent larger population. However, there are 20 percent more military personnel in the ATS countries. But the best way to assess the balance of power is to study the situation in the three zones of possible conflicts in Europe - the Northern, Central and Southern regions.

2. I will first turn to the "balance" in central Europe, where the main military forces of the Eastern and Western blocs are concentrated. Both sides see this region of Europe as the decisive theater of operations in any conflict between East and West. As you know, historically, the main invasion routes in the East-West direction ran precisely through central Europe.

a. Let's start by looking at the state of the ground forces.
(1) They represent the most significant component of the Warsaw Pact armed forces.
(a) The personnel of the ground forces of the ATS in central Europe exceeds the personnel of the NATO forces by almost 20%.

Balance of power in central Europe. Ground troops

Half of the ground forces of the Warsaw Pact belong to the USSR, while only a quarter of the NATO forces are American.
(c) The WTO has about twice as many divisions as NATO, although most NATO divisions are larger.
(2) As for tanks, the ATS has twice as many tanks as NATO. On the other hand, NATO has twice as many anti-tank missile launchers.

(3) The ITS has twice as many artillery pieces, but this advantage is diminished by better NATO ammunition and shooting techniques.
(a) The West is also at the forefront in the development of artillery shells, the lethality of which has been greatly improved.
(b) The West has a lot more self-propelled artillery pieces.
(4) Both sides are roughly equal in number of surface-to-air missile launchers

b. In tactical air forces, NATO has a significant qualitative advantage. However, the number of ATS aircraft in central Europe is twice that of NATO.
(1) Despite the numbers, the Soviets apparently perceive NATO air power as the main threat to their decisive advantage in central Europe.
(a) NATO aircraft such as the F-4 Phantom have better search and kill systems and are generally more versatile.
(b) NATO aircraft have a longer range and carry more payload than ATS aircraft.
(c) NATO pilots are better trained and more experienced as they fly more sorties than ATS pilots.

With. On tactical nuclear weapons systems, NATO currently has a numerical advantage.
(1) This is due to the fact that NATO deployed an additional 650 units of nuclear artillery, while we have no evidence of similar actions from the PTS. However, there is evidence that the Soviets are also receiving nukes for their artillery.

(2) The balance of nuclear forces within central Europe is, of course, only one side of the coin.
(a) As we indicated in the previous report, the Soviets have significant forces, including missiles and bombers, stationed in the western part of the USSR, and aimed mainly against NATO in Europe.

(b) NATO also has impressive nuclear systems outside of central Europe, including attack aircraft in the US and the UK, and several ballistic missile submarines assigned to NATO.

Balance of power in Central Europe

Another important factor in the balance of power is the readiness to conduct combat operations. Both sides need some time to transition to hostilities. Ground forces of the Warsaw Pact are not in a state of constant high alert.
(1) None of their divisions in central Europe not staffed to wartime strength. However, the USSR divisions in central Europe are almost complete, and can be put on alert within several hours. All divisions of Eastern European countries need to be manned by reserve reservists - some of them have only a minimal number of regular military personnel in their composition. This completion will take several days.

(2) The basic assumption on which the strategy of the Soviets is based is that hostilities will be preceded by a period of increased tension that will give the USSR at least a few days to prepare.
(a) The Soviets intend to use this period to carry out some preparatory activities, most of which will be covert.

(3) The Warsaw Pact mobilization system is based on traditional European practice: conscription in peacetime, and a partially completed regular army in peacetime, which is understaffed with reservists from the reserve and brought to a state of readiness within a few days.

(4) A similar system is used in most NATO countries (with the exception of the US and the UK). Both West Germany and France have plans to double the size of their armies within 72 hours of mobilization. U.S. units in West Germany maintain near-combat strength without the need for resupply. At the same time, there are plans to move, if necessary, ground and air units from the United States to West Germany by air.

(5) All European countries conduct mobilization exercises from time to time, and we have no reason to assume that their systems will not work.

NATO Ground Forces and ATS

The chart below shows how we assess the ability of both sides in central Europe to deploy their armed forces through mobilization and reinforcement over a 30-day period.

(a) In the first three days, both sides increase their military personnel by calling up reservists: 600,000 NATO and 350,000 ATS.
(b) NATO is deploying troops between days 3 and 15 due to the expected early arrival of French and British reinforcements, as well as additional mobilization in the Benelux countries, while the movement of Soviet military forces from the western regions of the USSR does not reaches a peak before the 10th day.
(c) The mass arrival of German reinforcements from the US begins after the 15th day.
(d) As the division curve shows, mobilization gives the WTO a lasting divisional manpower advantage of the order of 1.4:1.

e. Another thing to consider is reliability of logistics.
(1) Doctrine and status of logistical support for the Warsaw Pact countries is oriented towards the Soviet strategy of waging a quick war. In other words, the attacking forces in central Europe must have sufficient supplies at their disposal to carry out intensive combat operations for 3-4 weeks. This is approximately the time interval during which they intend to complete the campaign.
(2) Our information on their current inventory in central Europe is sparse, but their warehouses can hold a 30-day supply.
(3) Most NATO countries are also short war oriented, stockpiling for a month or so of hostilities, relying primarily on additional supplies from the US.

f. The last aspect related to the balance in central Europe relates to negotiations on mutual disarmament. These talks may improve stability in central Europe, but the goals set by both sides are very different.
(1) The West seeks to reduce the advantages of the POVD in tanks and personnel of the ground forces by eliminating the almost threefold superiority of the Soviet tank army and personnel of the POVD in relation to NATO. The goal of the West is to achieve parity.
(2) The East seeks to maintain its relative numerical advantage due to an equal proportional reduction of ground, air and nuclear forces. The principal aim of the Soviets is to establish ceiling of West German military power.
(3) During the last session of negotiations on mutual disarmament, the Soviets took an unprecedented step. For the first time in international arms control talks, they actually presented data on their armed forces.

Maximum strength of ATS and NATO forces

(a) They stated that the total number of ground and air forces in Poland, Czechoslovakia and East Germany was 987,300.
(b) We estimate that there are 1,150,000 military personnel in these ATS armed forces. In other words, their data is below our estimates of 160,000 people.
(c) However, we are convinced that the eastern data does not include all those individuals whom we consider to be on active duty in the disarmament negotiating region.
(d) We are confident that their initial data was compiled in such a way as to support the assertion that there was parity in the number of personnel, so that their position on equal proportional reduction would be adopted in the negotiations. I emphasize the word "initial" because in the early sessions the East demanded the exclusion of part of its forces from consideration on the grounds that the West resorted to the use of a large number of civilians to perform tasks that military personnel - cooks, typists, technicians - perform in the troops of the East. .
(e) We expect that discussions between East and West over data and methods for counting land and air forces will reveal the fact that - after all active personnel have been counted - there will be a significant quantitative disparity.
(f) Before such discussions can begin, the West should provide an update on NATO military forces. This presents a problem, as today France insists that the Allies, when discussing data for negotiations, do not take into account the 60,000 French military forces stationed in West Germany in NATO.

Aegean region

[censorship]

3. The "balance" of forces on the flanks gives [censorship] somewhat different picture.
a. In contrast to the theater of possible military operations in central Europe, on the flanks, the main interest is the naval forces.
(1) The balance of maritime forces is more difficult to assess, due to the different tasks facing the fleets and because of the significant asymmetry of forces.
(2) In the northern region of Europe, the main forces of the Soviets are precisely the naval forces. The Northern Fleet, based near Murmansk, is the largest of the four Soviet fleets.
(a) Most of the Soviet 176 (93 nuclear) submarines are assigned to the Northern Fleet.
(b) This is the main base for ASW and cruise missile-armed submarines that will be the main threat to NATO maritime operations in the Atlantic.
(3) The smallest of the four Soviet fleets is the Baltic Fleet.
(a) Its main task is to control the Baltic Sea and the approaches to it.
(b) It mainly consists of small surface warships.
(4) In the southern region, the Black Sea Fleet provides amphibious units and logistics support for the Mediterranean Squadron of the Soviets.
(a) The mission of the submarines and surface ships of the Soviet squadron in the Mediterranean is to counteract the operations carried out in the region by US transport ships and submarines.
b. Despite the growth of the Mediterranean squadron of the Soviets, pressure on the core structure of NATO, and other pressures, the military balance in the Mediterranean remains in favor of the West.

The balance of power on the flanks

Northern Fleet

Baltic Fleet

Black Sea

The main resources of the West in southern Europe include:
- Superiority in the Mediterranean in tactical aviation, both sea-based and land-based, which the Soviets will not be able to compensate for unless they establish air bases on the coast.
- Land bases in the Mediterranean, which, for the most part, are not vulnerable to conventional attack;
- Tactical nuclear weapons capable of providing reliable deterrence;
- Increasing the interests of France and its strength in the Mediterranean. France recently transferred two aircraft carriers with escort ships from the Atlantic to the Mediterranean.

(2) These advantages, however, are weakened in a number of ways.

(a) The number of US warships sent annually to the region has declined slightly since the mid-1960s, while the deployment of Soviet military forces and anti-aircraft carrier capabilities has increased.
(b) In addition, the number of US warships available to rapidly reinforce the Mediterranean grouping is significantly reduced against the backdrop of a steady increase in the number of Soviet warships dedicated to the same purpose.

Mediterranean Sea

Balance of power in the southern region. The personnel of the ground forces

(3) However, NATO maritime forces greatly outnumber Warsaw Pact maritime forces in the region.

c. In the ground forces in the southern region, NATO outnumbers the PTS by about 30 percent. However, this advantage is difficult to assess.

(1) ATS forces in the southern region are less effective than those deployed in central Europe.
(2) But NATO forces here are also less effective than those of the allies in the central region.
(3) There is concern about political uncertainty in all southern NATO countries.

[censorship]

USSR: other forces

1. Far East, personnel
- USSR - 445,000
- China - 1,565,000

2. US forces in Korea
- 1 infantry division (2nd division) and auxiliary units of the 8th army - 33,000 people.
- 3 Squadrons F-4 (50 aircraft)*
- 1 squadron OV-10 (16 aircraft)*

3. US forces in Japan (Okinawa)
- Marines
- 1 division of marines (3rd division
- 11 squadrons of combat and auxiliary aviation (including helicopters)
- Air force
- 1 S-130 squadron (4 aircraft)*
- 1 RF-4 squadron (18 aircraft)*
- 4 squadrons of F-4 (67 aircraft) *

4. US forces in the Philippines
- 2 squadrons of F-5 (50 aircraft)*
* Excluding aircraft carriers

[ censorship]

4. The USSR has at its disposal other general-purpose armed forces not directly connected with Europe.
a. Discord between the Soviets and China contributed to the deployment of significant military forces in the Soviet Far East.
(1) Starting in 1965 with 12 weak, ill-trained divisions sprawled along a 4,000-mile (about 6,500 km) frontier, the Soviets have now deployed 40 divisions against China, many with modern weapons. [censorship]
(2) The Soviets also deployed tactical air formations on the Chinese border, with some 1,200 combat aircraft.
(3) Soviet armed forces in the Far East, are there, probably for defense. They are more mobile and have more firepower than the Chinese military forces that oppose them, and are able not only to quickly repulse any Chinese aggression, but also to carry out significant offensives in the peripheral regions of China, such as Manchuria, Inner Mongolia or Xinjiang.
(4) Factors holding back Soviet military action in this region are the fear of a nuclear retaliation from China, and hopeless involvement in a protracted military campaign within China.
b. The Soviets have a general-purpose reserve of 28 divisions and 400 tactical aviation units stationed in the center of the USSR. This reserve can be used both against NATO and against China.
With. Aside from the possible situation of a radical improvement in Sino-Soviet relations, we are not sure that many (or any) of these 40 divisions facing China will be deployed towards NATO.
d. The Soviets also have a fourth, the Pacific Fleet.
(1) Compared to other navies, this is a larger, though less modern fleet. Modern surface ships and submarines enter it from other fleets. But in the last two years, the update rate seems to have increased. [censorship]
(2) The main purpose of this fleet is the defense of the maritime borders of the USSR and the destruction of the attacking naval forces of the West.
(3) Fleet bases are located in Vladivostok (in the Sea of Japan) and in Petropavlovsk (on the Kamchatka Peninsula). They have at their disposal submarines and aircraft designed to counter US naval forces in the Western Pacific.
(4) In fact, all Soviet navies operating in the Indian Ocean are part of. Pacific Fleet.

[censorship]

(5) Although there are rare naval exercises in the Philippine Sea, or in the western Pacific Ocean, most maritime activity is concentrated in territorial waters.
e. The USSR also maintains a small operational-tactical naval force in the Indian Ocean and West African waters.

Soviet offensive plan

The inscription on the arrow: 1-2 armies of reinforcements by day D + 7

If containment fails

IV. While the Soviets recognize the primacy of deterrence, their strategy is to win the war in Europe if it is fought.

A. This strategy has three key elements.
1. First, the councils intend to seize the initiative.
a. Their materiel, training and tactical doctrine emphasize the offensive nature.
b. Unlike NATO plans, the strategy pays minimal attention to the conduct of a defensive war.

Key elements of ATS strategy
Seizing the Initiative
Carrying out a fast offensive
Preparing for a nuclear escalation

2. Secondly, Moscow is planning do it fast. Soviet doctrine emphasizes the need to take West Germany out of the game before she can use her potential, as well as to prevent the mobilization of Western countries and the deployment of US forces in Europe.
3. Third, the Soviets are ready for nuclear escalation war. Since they expect to gain advantage in a conventional war, WTO strategists expect NATO to eventually start a nuclear war.

B. Let's take a closer look at the Soviet perceptions of war in central Europe.

B. Let's take a closer look at Soviet perceptions of war in central Europe.

1. Whether or not they have time to deploy, we believe the Soviets are oriented toward fighting for at least the first few days using only the 58 ATS divisions they have in central Europe. Large-scale reinforcements from the western regions of the USSR will not start moving until the start of the war.
a. Since they no longer believe that there will be a massive nuclear exchange at the start of the war, they see no need for reinforcements from the USSR before the start of the war.
b. Even if they have enough time to prepare, the Soviets may fear that a build-up of large quantities of weapons in central Europe could provoke NATO to retaliate, and even launch a nuclear strike.
With. In any case, the Soviets appear to be confident that the ground forces they currently have at their disposal are quite capable of carrying out an offensive into NATO territory.
2. In addition to the risk of a NATO nuclear strike, the Soviets see NATO air power as the main threat to the success of their offensive.
a. To counter the air threat, they are planning a massive phased air attack on NATO airfields.

(1) The above scheme should be implemented by the main tactical aviation units of the ATS, as well as by a large number of medium-range bombers from the territory of the USSR.
b. However, this ATS strategy is quite risky.
(1) It depends on tactical surprise, which will be difficult to achieve.
(2) NATO airports are not defenseless targets.
(3) If unsuccessful, the loss of ATS aircraft would be enormous.

C. The Soviet view of flank warfare is somewhat more limited. [censorship]
1. In the northern region, the goals and objectives of the Soviets are threefold:
- counteract naval forces located at a direct strike distance from the USSR.
- protect the entrance to the Norwegian and Baltic Seas, and
- protect the Danish straits.

Atlantic Ocean area of operations: at the outbreak of hostilities
Location of the naval forces of the Soviets

Possible Warsaw Pact airborne operations against the Danish islands and Turkish straits 1

Danish Islands
1 airborne division (Poland)

Turkish Straits
1 airborne division (Soviets)

Soviet airborne divisions

Quantity - 7 combat
1 training
Division size - 8,000 (total), 7,000 (in offensive units)

Vehicles

1) At the same time, only the combat units of two airborne divisions, or 1 full airborne division, can be lifted into the air with the help of transport aviation of the Soviets.

Theater of Central Europe: Planned Naval and Amphibious Operations of the Warsaw Pact

Theater of Operations of Southern Europe: Planned Naval and Amphibious Operations of the Warsaw Pact

Mediterranean theater of operations: Planned deployment of Soviet naval forces at the outbreak of hostilities

2. In the southern region, the Soviets are aiming to seize the Turkish straits by land attacks through the Balkans using landing forces from the Black Sea. The second goal is to counter Allied naval forces, mainly in the eastern and central Mediterranean.
a. Finally, we turned our attention to the special problem of the Soviet invasion of Yugoslavia.
(1) We have concluded that such an intervention does not seem likely, even after Tito's death, because of the enormous complexities involved.
(a) The USSR and its WTO allies will be forced to mobilize more forces than was required in 1968 to intervene in Czechoslovakia. They need to prepare for both Yugoslav resistance and a possible NATO reaction. [censorship]

(b) An invasion, if it takes place, should probably be led by tactical air and air operations, followed by an attack by about 30 ground divisions from several points in the territory of Hungary and Bulgaria.
(2) Deterrence of the invasion of Yugoslavia relies on highly organized capabilities for sustained resistance and guerrilla warfare. Yugoslavia plans to mobilize in wartime territorial and civil defense forces in the amount of five million people. [censorship]

Trends

V. Now I will talk about the trends (both in NATO and in the Warsaw Pact) of equipping with more high-tech and modern weapons and equipment.

A. The Soviets over the past decade have made significant efforts to modernize their ground forces, which Khrushchev had previously neglected.
1. Major improvements have been made in the protection and mechanization of divisions. (huge efforts are being made just to maintain a fleet of 45,000 tanks)

Trends

NATO	Warsaw Pact
Ground forces
New weaponry, modern anti-tank weapons, improved equipment of the West German territorial army, more French artillery and tanks, and new combat divisions (3 FRG and 2 USA)	New weapons, new self-propelled artillery, mobile anti-aircraft weapons
tactical aviation
New superior fighters (F-15), support fighters (A-10), and NATO multirole combat aircraft (MRCA)	Aircraft of extended range and carrying capacity (MIG-23 and SU-17), use of high-precision guided munitions
Theater nuclear forces
Doubling the number of F-111s, introduction of the F-16 in 1980, increase in submarine-launched ballistic missiles in France.	New and mobile medium-range missiles (SS-X-20), new tactical missiles (SS-X-21) and nuclear artillery
Naval programs
Reorientation of the French fleet to the Mediterranean, new anti-ship missiles	Improved air defense, new ships, enhanced anti-submarine capabilities

2. An impressive program is underway to provide ground forces with tighter, highly mobile air defenses.

3. The Soviets succeeded in increasing the compatibility of field artillery with tank units, by switching to self-propelled guns (although in the field of artillery they are decades behind NATO).

B. NATO has also already adopted a variety of programs to modernize and improve the combat capability of its ground forces. More importantly, the number of combat units is increasing.
1. Three new combat brigades are formed in West Germany.
2. The US is deploying two new combat brigades in Europe.
3. Germany will reorganize its territorial army, with a view to increasing its mobility and firepower.
4. France plans to reorganize its army by increasing the number of combat units, especially tank and artillery.
5. NATO armies continue to receive more guided anti-tank missiles and new tanks.

C. In their tactical aviation, the Soviets are replacing old aircraft with new ones more comparable to NATO aircraft in terms of range and payload.
1. The Soviets are also beginning to receive modern precision-guided munitions, although they are still far behind NATO in this respect.
2. NATO plans to take a significant step forward in its tactical aviation.
a. To replace the F-4s next year, Germany should receive new fighters superior to previous models (F-15)
b. To replace other F-4s, new close air support fighters (A-10) will be delivered to Europe in 1981.
With. Starting in 1901, F-16s will be supplied to the role of strike and attack aircraft in various units of the NATO air force, with the aim of replacing F-4s and F-104s.

Trends in the overall payload capacity of NATO and Warsaw Pact tactical aviation

d. In the next two or three years, the NATO multi-purpose combat aircraft, developed jointly by West Germany, Italy and the UK, will begin to enter the air forces of these countries.
e. These new NATO aircraft are far superior to anything seen today in ATS aviation.

D. Both sides are improving their theater nuclear forces.
1. The Soviets will increase the production of their SS-X-20 mobile-launched medium-range ballistic missiles. This missile is less vulnerable than older systems and gives the Soviets more flexible nuclear capabilities.
a. To replace less accurate systems, a new tactical missile SS-X-21 of the ground-to-ground class is intended.
b. The Soviets can receive nuclear munitions for artillery.
2. On the side of NATO, the US is doubling the number of F-llls in the UK, F-16 tactical fighters will begin to enter the NATO air force in the 1980s, and the UK and France are building 5 or 6 new submarines.

E. Maritime programs paint a similar picture of modernization.
1. Warsaw Pact countries improve air defense for their fleets, and build new improved ships. The Soviets continue to make great efforts to develop effective means of combating submarines.
2. With regard to NATO, the French navy has been reoriented to operations in the Mediterranean, and NATO's maritime forces are receiving new anti-ship missiles.

Advantages and disadvantages

VI. The apparent asymmetry of the armed forces of NATO and the Warsaw Pact makes it difficult to directly compare them. However, we can evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of both sides to get a sense of where the balance is.

A. First, the balance sheet for the ATS.
1. The main strengths of the ATS are:
- Tanks: in number, twice as many as in NATO.
- Standardization: all ATS armies use the same organization, tactics, and materiel.
- Geography: proximity to the USSR, the basis of the supply base.
- Protected Command Posts: The WTO builds fortified command posts for all of its main headquarters.

Warsaw Pact

2. ATS also has weaknesses:
- Unreliable Allies: The offensive strategy of the Soviets is dependent on potentially unreliable allies.
- A very risky air force plan: if the tactical air offensive of the Soviets fails, then the NATO air force will be able to stop the ground attacks.
- Dependence on significant armored forces: this is a potential weakness if NATO anti-tank capabilities continue to grow.

B. The pros and cons of NATO are as follows:
1. The advantages of NATO mainly lie in:
- Modern sophisticated equipment: especially aircraft and high-precision weapons.
- Fine, and relatively more accurate delivery systems for nuclear weapons.
- Reliable and militarily strong allies, especially in the critical central region.
- Mobilization capabilities of Germany.

NATO

2. NATO's most serious weaknesses include:
- Lack of standardization.
- Unfortunate location, especially vulnerable lines of communication and lack of ground forces in the northern region of central Europe.
- Political instability in the countries of the southern allies,
- Less security of NATO command centers, compared to ATS command centers. (As with other factors we have studied, there is a marked asymmetry in approach to command and control. ATS systems are highly centralized and standardized. NATO uses more modern equipment, but is less centralized and has less ability to integrate communications. Both the parties, from a professional military point of view, have problems in providing command of the Allied armies in wartime.)

conclusions

[censorship]

VII. Comparison of all the factors indicated in this presentation, of course, seems to be very problematic.
A. The best that can be said is that the Warsaw Pact, despite its numerical superiority in most ground combat elements, is confronted by an impressive NATO defense that cannot be expected to be overwhelmed without great risks.
B. This leads to the conclusion that an approximate balance of power is maintained.

Page 1

The North Atlantic Alliance (NATO) was formed in 1949 by representatives of 12 countries: Belgium, Canada, Denmark, France, Iceland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Great Britain and the United States of America. Greece and Turkey joined in 1952; Federal Republic of Germany in 1955; Spain in 1982.

The North Atlantic Alliance Treaty, signed in Washington on April 4, 1949, provided for mutual defense and collective security, initially against the threat of aggression from the Soviet Union. It was the first post-war union created by the United States of America, and was a union of capitalist countries. The reason for the creation of the treaty was the increasing scope of the Cold War. Since the Western European countries felt too weak for individual defense against the Soviet Union, they began in 1947 to create a structure for cooperation in defense. In March 1948, 5 countries - Belgium, France, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Great Britain signed the Brussels Treaty, which became the basis for NATO a year later. The basic principle of NATO, like all military alliances, has become Article 5: "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them, in Europe or North America, shall be considered an attack against them all." NATO was developed in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, which provided for the right of collective self-defense by regional organizations. This obliged the NATO nations to defend Western Europe and the North Atlantic; the treaty was also developed with the aim of deepening the political, economic and social ties between its members.

The NATO armed forces were created in 1950 in response to the Korean War, which began in June 1950, and was perceived by Western countries as part of a worldwide communist offensive. The war ended with a truce in 1953, and in the same positions in which it began. NATO's main policy-making body is the North Atlantic Council, which meets in Brussels (until 1967, when meetings took place in Paris). Each participating country provides an ambassadorial level representative, and these representatives meet at least once a week. The council also meets twice a year at the ministerial level and occasionally at the level of heads of state. NATO military matters are considered by the defense planning committee.

The Soviet response to the creation of NATO was the Warsaw Pact, which was founded in 1955 - 6 years after the formation of NATO. However, the cooperation of the countries of the socialist camp existed long before that: after the Second World War in the countries of Eastern Europe, governments led by the Communists came to power, this was partly due to the fact that after the Second World War Soviet troops remained in Eastern Europe, creating a psychological background. Prior to the formation of the Department of Internal Affairs, relations between the states of the socialist system were built on the basis of treaties of friendship and cooperation. In 1949, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance was created, which initially included the USSR, Bulgaria, Hungary, Poland, Romania and Czechoslovakia, and then a number of other countries.

In connection with some distortions in relations between the USSR and its allies after March 1953 in Eastern Europe, signs of mass discontent appeared in some countries of the socialist camp. There were strikes and demonstrations in some cities of Czechoslovakia, and the situation in Hungary worsened. The most serious unrest was in June 1953 in the GDR, where strikes and demonstrations caused by the deteriorating living standards of the population brought the country to the brink of a general strike. The Soviet government was forced to bring tanks into the GDR, which, with the help of the police, suppressed the protests of the workers. After the death of I.V. Stalin, the new Soviet leadership undertook a number of trips abroad, with the aim of negotiations and personal acquaintance with the leaders of the socialist countries. As a result of these trips, in 1955, the Warsaw Pact organization was formed, which included almost all the countries of Eastern Europe, except for Yugoslavia, which traditionally adhered to a policy of non-alignment. Within the framework of the Warsaw Pact, a unified command of the Armed Forces and a Political Consultative Committee, a body coordinating the foreign policy activities of the countries of Eastern Europe, were created. Representatives of the Soviet army played a decisive role in all the military-political structures of the Department of Internal Affairs.

False Dmitry II
Declaring himself in June 1607 the new pretender to the Russian throne, False Dmitry II by June 1608 greatly strengthened his position and approached Moscow. But he failed to take Moscow. And he was forced to stop in the village of Tushino, twelve kilometers from Moscow, for which he received the nickname "Tushino thief." And I must say that in this...

Foreign policy of Russia in 1900-1917. Causes and consequences of participation in the First World War. Allied blocs in Europe
The beginning of the 20th century is characterized by the aggravation of international relations. The interests of the old world leaders (England, France), who sought to preserve their colonial possessions, collide with the interests of the new leaders (Germany), who sought to acquire colonies for themselves. Economic penetration into new territories of the country of the second echelon ...

End of the war, conclusions
The world was entering the era of the "cold war": unstable balance, crises, conflicts. The fear of atomic Armageddon seized the minds of politicians and ordinary citizens. The Cold War began with a confrontation between two unequal superpowers. While the Soviet Union was capable of crushing the United States' closest European allies, American bombers...

The Cold War is the historical period from 1946 to 1991, which was marked by the confrontation between two major superpowers - the USSR and the USA, which took shape after the end of World War II in 1945. The rivalry between the two strongest states of the planet at that time gradually acquired a fierce character of confrontation in all spheres - economic, social, political and ideological. Both states created military-political associations (NATO and the Warsaw Pact), accelerated the creation of nuclear and conventional weapons, and also constantly took covert or overt participation in almost all local military conflicts on the planet.

Main causes of confrontation

The desire of the United States to secure world leadership and create a world based on American values, taking advantage of the temporary weakness of potential opponents (European states, like the USSR, lay in ruins after the war, and other countries at that time could not even close compete with the strengthened overseas "empire" )
Different ideological programs of the USA and the USSR (Capitalism and Socialism). The authority of the Soviet Union after the defeat of Nazi Germany was unusually high. Including in the states of Western Europe. Fearing the spread of communist ideology and mass support for it, the United States began to actively oppose the USSR.

The position of the parties at the beginning of the conflict

The United States initially had a colossal economic head start over its eastern adversary, thanks to which, in many respects, they got the opportunity to become a superpower. The USSR defeated the strongest European army, but paid for it with millions of lives and thousands of destroyed cities and villages. No one knew how long it would take to restore the economy destroyed by the fascist invasion. The territory of the United States, unlike the USSR, did not suffer at all, and the losses against the background of the losses of the Soviet army looked insignificant, since it was the Soviet Union that took the strongest blow from the fascist core of all of Europe, fighting alone against Germany and its allies from 1941 to 1944.

The United States, on the other hand, participated in the war in the European theater of operations for less than a year - from June 1944 to May 1945. After the war, the United States became a creditor to the Western European states, effectively formalizing their economic dependence on America. The Yankees proposed the Marshall Plan to Western Europe, an economic aid program that 16 states had signed by 1948. For 4 years, the United States had to transfer 17 billion to Europe. dollars.

Less than a year after the victory over fascism, the British and Americans began to look anxiously at the East and look for some kind of threat there. Already in the spring of 1946, Winston Churchill delivers his famous Fullton speech, which is usually associated with the beginning of the Cold War. Active anti-communist rhetoric begins in the West. By the end of the 1940s, all communists were removed from the governments of Western European states. This was one of the conditions under which the United States provided financial assistance to European countries.

The USSR was not included in the financial aid program for obvious reasons - it was already seen as an enemy. The countries of Eastern Europe, which were under the control of the communists, fearing the growth of US influence and economic dependence, also did not accept the Marshall Plan. Thus, the USSR and its allies were forced to restore the destroyed economy solely on their own, and this was done much faster than expected in the West. The USSR not only quickly restored infrastructure, industry and destroyed cities, but also quickly eliminated the US nuclear monopoly by creating nuclear weapons, thereby depriving the Americans of the opportunity to strike with impunity.

Creation of military-political blocs of NATO and the Warsaw Pact

In the spring of 1949, the United States initiated the creation of a NATO military bloc (Organization of the North Atlantic Alliance), motivating this by the need to "fight the Soviet threat." The union initially included the Netherlands, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Great Britain, Iceland, Portugal, Italy, Norway, Denmark, as well as the USA and Canada. American military bases began to appear in Europe, the size of the armed forces of European armies increased, and the number of military equipment and combat aircraft increased.

The USSR reacted in 1955 with the creation of the Warsaw Treaty Organization (OVD), in the same way creating the unified armed forces of the Eastern European states, as they did in the West. The ATS included Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, the GDR, Poland, Romania, the USSR and Czechoslovakia. In response to the buildup of military forces by the Western military bloc, the strengthening of the armies of the socialist states also began.

Symbols of NATO and the Warsaw Pact

Local military conflicts

Two military-political blocs launched a large-scale confrontation with each other all over the planet. A direct military clash was feared on both sides, since its outcome was unpredictable. However, there was a constant struggle in various parts of the globe for spheres of influence and control over non-aligned countries. Here are just a few of the most striking examples of military conflicts in which the USSR and the USA indirectly or directly participated.

1. Korean War (1950-1953)
After World War II, Korea was divided into two states - in the South, pro-American forces were in power, and in the north, the DPRK (Democratic People's Republic of Korea) was formed, in which the Communists were in power. In 1950, a war broke out between the two Koreas - “socialist” and “capitalist”, in which, of course, the USSR supported North Korea, and the USA supported South Korea. Soviet pilots and military specialists, as well as detachments of Chinese "volunteers", unofficially fought on the side of the DPRK. The United States provided direct military assistance to South Korea, intervening openly in the conflict, which ended with the signing of a peace and the maintenance of the status quo in 1953.

2. Vietnam War (1957-1975)
In fact, the scenario of the beginning of the confrontation was the same - Vietnam after 1954 was divided into two parts. In North Vietnam, the communists were in power, and in South Vietnam, political forces oriented towards the United States. Each side sought to unify Vietnam. Since 1965, the United States has provided open military assistance to the South Vietnamese regime. Regular American troops, along with the army of South Vietnam, participated in hostilities against North Vietnamese troops. Covert assistance to North Vietnam with weapons, equipment and military specialists was provided by the USSR and China. The war ended with the victory of the North Vietnamese communists in 1975.

3. Arab-Israeli wars
In a series of wars in the Middle East between the Arab states and Israel, the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc supported the Arabs, while the US and NATO supported the Israelis. Soviet military specialists trained the troops of the Arab states, which were armed with tanks and aircraft that came from the USSR, and the soldiers of the Arab armies used Soviet equipment and equipment. The Israelis used American military equipment and followed the instructions of US advisers.

4. Afghan war (1979-1989)
The USSR sent troops to Afghanistan in 1979 to support a political regime that was oriented toward Moscow. Large formations of the Afghan Mujahideen fought against the Soviet troops and the government army of Afghanistan, who enjoyed the support of the United States and NATO, and accordingly armed themselves with them. Soviet troops left Afghanistan in 1989, the war continued after their departure.

All of the above is only a small part of the military conflicts in which the superpowers participated, covertly or almost overtly fighting each other in local wars.

1 - American soldiers in position during the Korean War
2-Soviet tank in the service of the Syrian army
3-American helicopter in the sky over Vietnam
4-Column of Soviet troops in Afghanistan

Why did the USSR and the USA never enter into a direct military conflict?

As mentioned above, the outcome of the military conflict between the two large military blocs was completely unpredictable, but the main deterrent was the presence of nuclear missile weapons in huge quantities both in the United States and in the Soviet Union. Over the years of confrontation, the parties have accumulated such a number of nuclear charges that would be enough to repeatedly destroy all life on Earth.

Thus, a direct military conflict between the USSR and the USA would inevitably mean an exchange of nuclear missile strikes, during which there would be no winners - everyone would be losers, and the very possibility of life on the planet would be called into question. Nobody wanted such an outcome, so the parties avoided an open military clash with each other in every possible way, but nevertheless periodically tried each other's strength in local conflicts, helping any state covertly or directly participating in hostilities.

So, with the beginning of the nuclear age, local conflicts and information wars have become almost the only ways to expand their influence and control over other states. This situation persists to this day. The possibilities of the collapse and liquidation of such major geopolitical players as modern China and Russia lie only in the sphere of attempts to undermine the state from within by means of information wars, the purpose of which is a coup d'etat with subsequent destructive actions of puppet governments. There are constant attempts on the part of the West to find the weaknesses of Russia and other uncontrolled states, to provoke ethnic, religious, political conflicts, etc.

End of the Cold War

In 1991, the Soviet Union collapsed. There was only one superpower left on planet Earth - the United States, which tried to rebuild the whole world on the basis of American liberal values. Within the framework of globalization, an attempt is being made to impose on all mankind a certain universal model of social structure along the lines of the United States and Western Europe. However, this has not yet been possible. There is active resistance in all parts of the globe against the imposition of American values, which are unacceptable to many peoples. The story goes on, the struggle continues ... Think about the future and the past, try to understand and comprehend the world around you, develop and do not stand still. Passive waiting and burning through life is essentially a regression in your development. As the Russian philosopher V. Belinsky said - who does not go forward, he goes back, there is no standing position ...

Best regards, mind-point administration

NATO in translation means the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or the North Atlantic Alliance.

This is a military-political bloc, which unites most of the countries of Europe, the USA and Canada.

4/4/1949 - signing of the North Atlantic Pact (NATO) in Washington to protect Europe from Soviet influence

Initially, NATO included 12 countries - the USA, Canada, Iceland, Great Britain, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark, Italy and Portugal.

It is a "transatlantic forum" for Allied countries to consult on any matter affecting the vital interests of its members, including events that could endanger their security.

NATO Goals:

1. "Strengthening Stability and Prosperity in the North Atlantic Region". "Strengthening your own institutions"

2. "The participating countries have joined their efforts to create a collective defense and maintain peace and security"

3. Providing deterrence or defense against any form of aggression against the territory of any NATO member state

4. In general, the bloc was created to "repel the Soviet threat." In the words of First Secretary General Ismay Hastings, the purpose of NATO was "... to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans under."

5. NATO's 2010 Strategic Vision "Active Engagement, Modern Defense" presents NATO's three overriding missions of collective defence, crisis management and cooperative security.

NATO policy is aimed at: undermining the influence of the USSR, - suppressing the growth of the international liberation movement, - expanding world domination.

ATS is a Warsaw Pact organization.

May 14, 1955 - formation of the Department of Internal Affairs. An agreement on friendship, cooperation and mutual assistance was signed. This document formalized the creation of the Military Union of European Socialist Countries. The leading role belongs to the USSR.

The document fixed the bipolarity of the world for 36 years.

The treaty was signed by Albania, Bulgaria, Hungary, the GDR, Poland, Romania, the USSR and Czechoslovakia on May 14, 1955 at the Warsaw Conference of European States to ensure peace and security in Europe.

The treaty entered into force on June 5, 1955. April 26, 1985, due to the expiration date, was extended for 20 years.

The members of this organization agreed to refrain from the threat and use of force.

It was important that if someone attacks someone, then the rest of the countries will help by all means, incl. and military assistance. A joint command and a political advisory committee were created.

The treaty had a defensive character and was aimed at strengthening the defense capabilities of the socialist countries and ensuring peace throughout the world.

You can also find information of interest in the scientific search engine Otvety.Online. Use the search form:

Portal for the student. Self-training

Which states were part of the Cold War. red nato

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below