9 research outputs found
Non-Western Peacekeeping as a Factor of a Multipolar World: Outlines of Research Program
This paper describes the contours of a research program on peacekeeping and peacebuilding, representing the interests of Non-Western countries (the worldβs majority). The article is based on both individual developments of its expert authors in the theory and practice of peacekeeping, international law and development cooperation, as well as on generalized conclusions of eight international workshops on Non-Western peacekeeping, held by the Department of Theory and History of International Relations of the RUDN University in 2020-2021 with the participation of leading Russian and international experts. Particular attention is paid to the current moment in international peacekeeping associated with the βpower transitβ (from the United States to China, and more broadly, from the West to the Non-West) and the power vacuum observed in a number of regions. Conclusions are drawn about the crisis of humanitarian intervention and the system of liberal peacekeeping in general. At the same time, the remaining instruments of Western structural power in the field of peacekeeping are examined in detail, covering both personnel representation in the UN and the practice of βpenholding,β as well as the discursive hegemony of the βCollective West.β The main directions in the development of Non-Western academic discourse in the field of peacemaking and peacebuilding are explored in the context of building a multipolar world. Special attention is paid to the problems of regional human rights systems in the context of the protection of civilians and post-conflict peacebuilding. The study concludes that Non-Western countries have a significant influence on the formation of international norms in the field of peacekeeping (rule-changers), but so far do not act as norm-setting actors in world politics (rule-makers)
Mathematical Modelling of Cell-Fate Decision in Response to Death Receptor Engagement
Cytokines such as TNF and FASL can trigger death or survival depending on cell lines and cellular conditions. The mechanistic details of how a cell chooses among these cell fates are still unclear. The understanding of these processes is important since they are altered in many diseases, including cancer and AIDS. Using a discrete modelling formalism, we present a mathematical model of cell fate decision recapitulating and integrating the most consistent facts extracted from the literature. This model provides a generic high-level view of the interplays between NFΞΊB pro-survival pathway, RIP1-dependent necrosis, and the apoptosis pathway in response to death receptor-mediated signals. Wild type simulations demonstrate robust segregation of cellular responses to receptor engagement. Model simulations recapitulate documented phenotypes of protein knockdowns and enable the prediction of the effects of novel knockdowns. In silico experiments simulate the outcomes following ligand removal at different stages, and suggest experimental approaches to further validate and specialise the model for particular cell types. We also propose a reduced conceptual model implementing the logic of the decision process. This analysis gives specific predictions regarding cross-talks between the three pathways, as well as the transient role of RIP1 protein in necrosis, and confirms the phenotypes of novel perturbations. Our wild type and mutant simulations provide novel insights to restore apoptosis in defective cells. The model analysis expands our understanding of how cell fate decision is made. Moreover, our current model can be used to assess contradictory or controversial data from the literature. Ultimately, it constitutes a valuable reasoning tool to delineate novel experiments
Π¦Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΠ½ΡΠΉ ΡΡΠ²Π΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅Ρ Π² ΡΠΏΠΎΡ Ρ Π³Π»ΠΎΠ±Π°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡ ΠΊΠΎΠ½Π²Π΅ΡΠ³Π΅Π½ΡΠ½ΡΡ ΠΌΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΠ°
Sovereignty in the digital space is a relatively new phenomenon, which is discussed in this paper. It is complex in nature and depends both on the technological base which is used (primarily network equipment, including 5G, etc.), software products and platforms, and on the promoted content. The countries are faced with the difficult task of regulating the activities of global media holdings in order to maintain value-based sovereignty. The author gives a political and economic analysis of value sovereignty, showing the importance of the state as a regulator that allows to eliminate negative informational externalities. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of the international media landscape and the formation of multipolarity in the network space, including the growing phenomenon of technological convergence in the media industry, as well as the positions of individual countries and regions in the global media industry. The corporate structures of the worldβs largest media holdings are studied and the increasing degree of diversification of their assets is revealed. The generational differentiation of socialization mechanisms in the post-pandemic era, including the proportion of time devoted to social platforms, traditional media (the case of television), as well as the main ways of accessing the Internet and the penetration of new technologies. The most promising for socialization and fast-growing segments are shown, including Internet TV, virtual reality technologies, video games and cyber-sports. In the final part of the paper the author discusses the main problems and challenges of regulating the national media space in order to ensure value sovereignty in the era of global convergent media.Π‘ΡΠ²Π΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅Ρ Π² ΡΠΈΡΡΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠΌ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΡΡΠ°Π½ΡΡΠ²Π΅ - ΡΡΠΎ ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΡΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎ Π½ΠΎΠ²ΡΠΉ, ΡΡΠ°Π²Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎ ΠΌΠ°Π»ΠΎΠΈΠ·ΡΡΠ΅Π½Π½ΡΠΉ ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΎΠΌΠ΅Π½, ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΠΉ ΡΠ°ΡΡΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠΈΠ²Π°Π΅ΡΡΡ Π² Π΄Π°Π½Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΡΠ°ΡΡΠ΅. ΠΠ½ Π½ΠΎΡΠΈΡ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΠ»Π΅ΠΊΡΠ½ΡΠΉ Ρ
Π°ΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠ΅Ρ ΠΈ Π·Π°Π²ΠΈΡΠΈΡ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ ΠΎΡ ΠΈΡΠΏΠΎΠ»ΡΠ·ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΎΠΉ ΡΠ΅Ρ
Π½ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ Π±Π°Π·Ρ (ΠΏΡΠ΅ΠΆΠ΄Π΅ Π²ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎ, ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π²ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΎΠ±ΠΎΡΡΠ΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ, Π² ΡΠΎΠΌ ΡΠΈΡΠ»Π΅ 5G ΠΈ Π΄Ρ.), ΠΏΡΠΎΠ³ΡΠ°ΠΌΠΌΠ½ΡΡ
ΠΏΡΠΎΠ΄ΡΠΊΡΠΎΠ² ΠΈ ΠΏΠ»Π°ΡΡΠΎΡΠΌ, ΡΠ°ΠΊ ΠΈ ΠΎΡ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ΄Π²ΠΈΠ³Π°Π΅ΠΌΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠ°. ΠΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π΄ ΡΡΡΠ°Π½Π°ΠΌΠΈ Π²ΡΡΠ°Π΅Ρ Π½Π΅ΠΏΡΠΎΡΡΠ°Ρ Π·Π°Π΄Π°ΡΠ° ΡΠ΅Π³ΡΠ»ΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ Π΄Π΅ΡΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ Π³Π»ΠΎΠ±Π°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΠΌΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΠ°-Ρ
ΠΎΠ»Π΄ΠΈΠ½Π³ΠΎΠ² Π΄Π»Ρ ΡΠΎΡ
ΡΠ°Π½Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΡΠ²Π΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠ°. ΠΠ²ΡΠΎΡ ΠΏΡΠΈΠ²ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠΉ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ· ΡΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΡΠ²Π΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠ°, ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·ΡΠ²Π°Ρ Π²Π°ΠΆΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡ Π³ΠΎΡΡΠ΄Π°ΡΡΡΠ²Π° ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ ΡΠ΅Π³ΡΠ»ΡΡΠΎΡΠ°, ΠΏΠΎΠ·Π²ΠΎΠ»ΡΡΡΠ΅Π³ΠΎ ΡΡΡΡΠ°Π½ΡΡΡ Π½Π΅Π³Π°ΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΡΠ΅ ΠΈΠ½ΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ°ΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π½ΡΠ΅ ΡΠΊΡΡΠ΅ΡΠ½Π°Π»ΠΈΠΈ. ΠΡΠΎΠ±ΠΎΠ΅ Π²Π½ΠΈΠΌΠ°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠ΄Π΅Π»ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·Ρ ΠΌΠ΅ΠΆΠ΄ΡΠ½Π°ΡΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΌΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΠ°ΠΏΠ΅ΠΉΠ·Π°ΠΆΠ° ΠΈ ΡΠΎΡΠΌΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΌΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎΠΏΠΎΠ»ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ Π² ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π²ΠΎΠΌ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΡΡΠ°Π½ΡΡΠ²Π΅, Π² ΡΠΎΠΌ ΡΠΈΡΠ»Π΅ ΡΡΠΈΠ»ΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΡΡΡ ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΎΠΌΠ΅Π½Ρ ΡΠ΅Ρ
Π½ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΊΠΎΠ½Π²Π΅ΡΠ³Π΅Π½ΡΠΈΠΈ Π² ΠΌΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΠ°ΠΈΠ½Π΄ΡΡΡΡΠΈΠΈ, Π° ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΆΠ΅ ΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠΌ ΠΎΡΠ΄Π΅Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΡΡΡΠ°Π½ ΠΈ ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΈΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠ² Π² Π³Π»ΠΎΠ±Π°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΌΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΠ°ΠΈΠ½Π΄ΡΡΡΡΠΈΠΈ. Π Π°ΡΡΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΡΡΡ ΠΊΠΎΡΠΏΠΎΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΡΠ΅ ΡΡΡΡΠΊΡΡΡΡ ΠΊΡΡΠΏΠ½Π΅ΠΉΡΠΈΡ
ΠΌΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΠ°Ρ
ΠΎΠ»Π΄ΠΈΠ½Π³ΠΎΠ² ΠΌΠΈΡΠ°, ΠΈ Π²ΡΡΠ²Π»ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ ΡΡΠΈΠ»ΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΡΠ°ΡΡΡ ΡΡΠ΅ΠΏΠ΅Π½Ρ Π΄ΠΈΠ²Π΅ΡΡΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ ΠΈΡ
Π°ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²ΠΎΠ². ΠΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΡΡΡΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠΎΠ»Π΅Π½ΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠ°Ρ Π΄ΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΡΠΈΠ°ΡΠΈΡ ΠΌΠ΅Ρ
Π°Π½ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠΎΠ² ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΠΈ Π² ΠΏΠΎΡΡΠΏΠ°Π½Π΄Π΅ΠΌΠΈΠΉΠ½ΡΡ ΡΠΏΠΎΡ
Ρ, Π² ΡΠΎΠΌ ΡΠΈΡΠ»Π΅ Π΄ΠΎΠ»Ρ Π²ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΠΈ, ΡΠ΄Π΅Π»ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠΌ ΠΏΠ»Π°ΡΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ°ΠΌ, ΡΡΠ°Π΄ΠΈΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π½ΡΠΌ Π‘ΠΠ (Π½Π° ΠΏΡΠΈΠΌΠ΅ΡΠ΅ ΡΠ΅Π»Π΅Π²ΠΈΠ΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ), Π° ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΆΠ΅ ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π½ΡΠ΅ ΡΠΏΠΎΡΠΎΠ±Ρ Π΄ΠΎΡΡΡΠΏΠ° Π² ΠΠ½ΡΠ΅ΡΠ½Π΅Ρ ΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠΊΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ Π½ΠΎΠ²ΡΡ
ΡΠ΅Ρ
Π½ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΠΉ. ΠΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°Π½Ρ Π½Π°ΠΈΠ±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π΅ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΡΠΏΠ΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΡΠ΅ Π΄Π»Ρ ΡΠΎΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΠΈ ΠΈ Π±ΡΡΡΡΠΎΡΠ°ΡΡΡΡΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΡ, Π² ΡΠ°ΡΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅ΡΠ½Π΅Ρ-ΡΠ΅Π»Π΅Π²ΠΈΠ΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅, ΡΠ΅Ρ
Π½ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΠΈ ΡΠΎΠ·Π΄Π°Π½ΠΈΡ Π²ΠΈΡΡΡΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΠ΅Π°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ, Π²ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΎΠΈΠ³ΡΡ ΠΈ ΠΊΠΈΠ±Π΅ΡΡΠΏΠΎΡΡ. Π ΡΠΈΠ½Π°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΠ°ΡΡΠΈ ΡΡΠ°ΡΡΠΈ ΡΠ°ΡΡΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΡΡΡ ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π½ΡΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ±Π»Π΅ΠΌΡ ΠΈ Π²ΡΠ·ΠΎΠ²Ρ ΡΠ΅Π³ΡΠ»ΠΈΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ Π½Π°ΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΌΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΠ°ΠΏΡΠΎΡΡΡΠ°Π½ΡΡΠ²Π° Ρ ΡΠ΅Π»ΡΡ ΠΎΠ±Π΅ΡΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΡΠ²Π΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠ° Π² ΡΠΏΠΎΡ
Ρ Π³Π»ΠΎΠ±Π°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΠΊΠΎΠ½Π²Π΅ΡΠ³Π΅Π½ΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΠΌΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΠ°
Π‘ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΡΠΊΠ°Ρ ΡΡΡΡΠΊΡΡΡΠ½Π°Ρ ΠΏΠΎΠΌΠΎΡΡ Π Π΅ΡΠΏΡΠ±Π»ΠΈΠΊΠ΅ ΠΠ°Π»ΠΈ Π² 1960-1968 Π³Π³.
The article analyzes the phenomenon of the Soviet Unionβs structural aid to African countries - technical and economic cooperation covering major sectors of the economy to ensure the self-sufficient development of recipient countries and weaken the neocolonial impact of the West. The case of bilateral relations between the USSR and Mali in 1960-1968 was chosen for a number of reasons - the strategic location of this African country, its place in the structure of French interests, the formats and volumes of Soviet aid, and, finally, rather weak coverage of the issue in Russian and foreign historiography. The authors preface the analysis of Soviet aid with an overview of the countryβs economic situation in the 1960s and the difficulties faced by the Malian government in establishing an independent economic system through the introduction of its own currency, the Malian franc, and the nationalization of former French enterprises. The research is mostly based on the archival funds of the State Committee on Foreign Economic Relations of the Russian State Archive of Economy. The analysis of Soviet assistance is conducted in a wide range of areas, from industry and agriculture to health care and education. The final section examines the transport issue and the Soviet role in removal of the transport blockade imposed by Senegal. Both successful projects of Soviet-Malian cooperation, as the gold and bauxite exploration, the construction of a cement plant, and a sports stadium, and unrealized ideas are described. Among the most obvious problems that hindered cooperation between the USSR and Mali were the lack of financial resources, excessive caution, and Maliβs rather active cooperation with its neighbors and capitalist countries. Soviet aid to Mali allows us to trace the Soviet Unionβs role in the real decolonization of African countries and the strengthening of their sovereignty. Unlike many other donors, who mostly limited their aid to certain projects, the USSR provided support within the framework of a full cycle of work in all sectors of the economy (resource extraction - construction of enterprises for processing resources - training of personnel to service enterprises - export of finished goods). Obviously, such a comprehensive approach had a truly favorable effect on the sovereignization of the Malian economy.ΠΠ½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΎΠΌΠ΅Π½ ΡΡΡΡΠΊΡΡΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΠΌΠΎΡΠΈ Π‘ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π‘ΠΎΡΠ·Π° ΡΡΡΠ°Π½Π°ΠΌ ΠΡΡΠΈΠΊΠΈ - ΡΠ΅Ρ
Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΈ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠΎΡΡΡΠ΄Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π° Ρ ΠΎΡ
Π²Π°ΡΠΎΠΌ ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π½ΡΡ
ΠΎΡΡΠ°ΡΠ»Π΅ΠΉ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΠΊΠΈ Π΄Π»Ρ ΠΎΠ±Π΅ΡΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΠ°ΠΌΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΡΡΠ°ΡΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠ°Π·Π²ΠΈΡΠΈΡ ΡΡΡΠ°Π½-ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΏΠΈΠ΅Π½ΡΠΎΠ² ΠΈ ΠΎΡΠ»Π°Π±Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ Π½Π΅ΠΎΠΊΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π²Π»ΠΈΡΠ½ΠΈΡ ΠΠ°ΠΏΠ°Π΄Π°. ΠΠ΅ΠΉΡ Π΄Π²ΡΡΡΠΎΡΠΎΠ½Π½ΠΈΡ
ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΉ Π‘Π‘Π‘Π ΠΈ ΠΠ°Π»ΠΈ Π² 1960-1968 Π³Π³. Π±ΡΠ» Π²ΡΠ±ΡΠ°Π½ ΠΏΠΎ ΡΡΠ΄Ρ ΠΏΡΠΈΡΠΈΠ½, ΡΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΈ ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΡ
ΡΡΡΠ°ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ΅ ΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΠΎΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠΆΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΡΠΎΠΉ Π°ΡΡΠΈΠΊΠ°Π½ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΡΡΡΠ°Π½Ρ, Π΅Π΅ ΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΠΎ Π² ΡΡΡΡΠΊΡΡΡΠ΅ ΠΈΠ½ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ² Π€ΡΠ°Π½ΡΠΈΠΈ, ΡΠΎΡΠΌΠ°ΡΡ ΠΈ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΠΌΡ ΠΏΠΎΠΌΠΎΡΠΈ Π‘Π‘Π‘Π , Π½Π°ΠΊΠΎΠ½Π΅Ρ, Π½Π΅Π΄ΠΎΡΡΠ°ΡΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡ ΠΎΡΠ²Π΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ Π²ΠΎΠΏΡΠΎΡΠ° Π² ΠΎΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΈ Π·Π°ΡΡΠ±Π΅ΠΆΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΈΡΡΠΎΡΠΈΠΎΠ³ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠΈ. ΠΠ½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ· ΡΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΠΌΠΎΡΠΈ ΠΠ°Π»ΠΈ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄Π²Π°ΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ ΠΎΠ±Π·ΠΎΡΠΎΠΌ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠΆΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΡΡΠ°Π½Ρ Π² ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΡΠ΅ΠΌΡΠΉ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΎΠ΄ ΠΈ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΡΠ»Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ΠΌ ΡΡΡΠ΄Π½ΠΎΡΡΠ΅ΠΉ, Ρ ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΠΌΠΈ ΡΡΠΎΠ»ΠΊΠ½ΡΠ»ΠΎΡΡ ΠΌΠ°Π»ΠΈΠΉΡΠΊΠΎΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠ°Π²ΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΡΡΠ²ΠΎ ΠΏΡΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΠΏΡΡΠΊΠ°Ρ
ΡΠΎΠ·Π΄Π°Π½ΠΈΡ Π½Π΅Π·Π°Π²ΠΈΡΠΈΠΌΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΡ ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π· Π²Π½Π΅Π΄ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠΎΠ±ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠΉ Π²Π°Π»ΡΡΡ - ΠΌΠ°Π»ΠΈΠΉΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΡΠ°Π½ΠΊΠ° - ΠΈ Π½Π°ΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΡ Π±ΡΠ²ΡΠΈΡ
ΡΡΠ°Π½ΡΡΠ·ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΏΡΠΈΡΡΠΈΠΉ. Π Π°Π±ΠΎΡΠ° Π½Π°ΠΏΠΈΡΠ°Π½Π° Ρ ΠΎΠΏΠΎΡΠΎΠΉ Π½Π° Π°ΡΡ
ΠΈΠ²Π½ΡΠ΅ ΠΌΠ°ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ°Π»Ρ ΠΠΎΡΡΠ΄Π°ΡΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠ° Π‘ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΠ° ΠΠΈΠ½ΠΈΡΡΡΠΎΠ² Π‘Π‘Π‘Π ΠΏΠΎ Π²Π½Π΅ΡΠ½ΠΈΠΌ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠΌ ΡΠ²ΡΠ·ΡΠΌ (ΠΠΠΠ‘), Ρ
ΡΠ°Π½ΡΡΠΈΠ΅ΡΡ Π² ΡΠΎΠ½Π΄Π°Ρ
Π ΠΎΡΡΠΈΠΉΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π³ΠΎΡΡΠ΄Π°ΡΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π°ΡΡ
ΠΈΠ²Π° ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΠΊΠΈ. ΠΠ½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ· ΡΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΠΌΠΎΡΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΡΡΡ ΠΏΠΎ ΡΠ°ΠΌΠΎΠΌΡ ΡΠΈΡΠΎΠΊΠΎΠΌΡ ΡΠΏΠ΅ΠΊΡΡΡ Π½Π°ΠΏΡΠ°Π²Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΠΉ - ΠΎΡ ΠΏΡΠΎΠΌΡΡΠ»Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΠΈ ΡΠ΅Π»ΡΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Ρ
ΠΎΠ·ΡΠΉΡΡΠ²Π° Π΄ΠΎ Π·Π΄ΡΠ°Π²ΠΎΠΎΡ
ΡΠ°Π½Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΈ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ°Π·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ. Π ΡΠΈΠ½Π°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΠ°ΡΡΠΈ ΡΠ°ΡΡΠΌΠ°ΡΡΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΡΡΡ ΡΡΠ°Π½ΡΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ½ΡΠΉ Π²ΠΎΠΏΡΠΎΡ ΠΈ ΡΠΎΠ»Ρ Π‘Π‘Π‘Π Π² ΡΠ½ΡΡΠΈΠΈ ΡΡΠ°Π½ΡΠΏΠΎΡΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ Π±Π»ΠΎΠΊΠ°Π΄Ρ ΠΠ°Π»ΠΈ, ΡΡΡΠ°Π½ΠΎΠ²Π»Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠΉ Π‘Π΅Π½Π΅Π³Π°Π»ΠΎΠΌ. ΠΠΏΠΈΡΡΠ²Π°ΡΡΡΡ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ ΡΡΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ½ΡΠ΅ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ΅ΠΊΡΡ ΡΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΡΠΊΠΎ-ΠΌΠ°Π»ΠΈΠΉΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠΎΡΡΡΠ΄Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π° Π² Π²ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ Π³Π΅ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΎΡΠ°Π·Π²Π΅Π΄ΠΊΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΠΎΡΠΎΠΆΠ΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΠΉ Π·ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡΠ° ΠΈ Π±ΠΎΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΎΠ², ΡΡΡΠΎΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΡΡΠ²Π° ΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π·Π°Π²ΠΎΠ΄Π° ΠΈ ΡΠΏΠΎΡΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΡΠ°Π΄ΠΈΠΎΠ½Π°, ΡΠ°ΠΊ ΠΈ Π½Π΅ΡΠ΅Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½Π½ΡΠ΅ ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΠΈ. Π‘ΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΈ Π½Π°ΠΈΠ±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π΅ ΠΎΡΠ΅Π²ΠΈΠ΄Π½ΡΡ
ΠΏΡΠΎΠ±Π»Π΅ΠΌ, ΠΏΡΠ΅ΠΏΡΡΡΡΠ²ΠΎΠ²Π°Π²ΡΠΈΡ
ΡΠΎΡΡΡΠ΄Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Ρ Π‘Π‘Π‘Π ΠΈ ΠΠ°Π»ΠΈ, Π±ΡΠ»ΠΈ Π½Π΅Π΄ΠΎΡΡΠ°ΡΠΎΠΊ ΡΠΈΠ½Π°Π½ΡΠΎΠ²ΡΡ
ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡΡΠΎΠ², ΠΈΠ·Π»ΠΈΡΠ½ΡΡ ΠΎΡΡΠΎΡΠΎΠΆΠ½ΠΎΡΡΡ, Π΄ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ»ΡΠ½ΠΎ Π°ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½Π°Ρ ΠΊΠΎΠΎΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΡ ΠΠ°Π»ΠΈ ΡΠΎ ΡΠ²ΠΎΠΈΠΌΠΈ ΡΠΎΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΠΌΠΈ ΠΈ ΠΊΠ°ΠΏΠΈΡΠ°Π»ΠΈΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠΌΠΈ ΡΡΡΠ°Π½Π°ΠΌΠΈ. ΠΠ·ΡΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΠΌΠΎΡΠΈ ΠΠ°Π»ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΠ·Π²ΠΎΠ»ΡΠ΅Ρ ΠΏΡΠΎΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΈΡΡ ΡΠΎΠ»Ρ Π‘Π‘Π‘Π Π² Π΄Π΅Π»Π΅ ΡΠ΅Π°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ Π΄Π΅ΠΊΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΠΈ Π°ΡΡΠΈΠΊΠ°Π½ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΡΡΡΠ°Π½ ΠΈ ΡΠΊΡΠ΅ΠΏΠ»Π΅Π½ΠΈΠΈ ΠΈΡ
ΡΡΠ²Π΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠ°. Π ΠΎΡΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΠ΅ ΠΎΡ ΠΌΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡ
Π΄ΡΡΠ³ΠΈΡ
ΡΡΡΠ°Π½-Π΄ΠΎΠ½ΠΎΡΠΎΠ², ΠΊΠΎΡΠΎΡΡΠ΅ ΠΎΠ³ΡΠ°Π½ΠΈΡΠΈΠ²Π°Π»ΠΈΡΡ ΠΏΠΎΠΌΠΎΡΡΡ Π² ΠΎΡΠ΄Π΅Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡ
ΠΏΡΠΎΠ΅ΠΊΡΠ°Ρ
, Π‘Π‘Π‘Π ΠΎΠ±Π΅ΡΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ²Π°Π» ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Π΄Π΅ΡΠΆΠΊΡ Π² ΡΠ°ΠΌΠΊΠ°Ρ
ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠΈΠΊΠ»Π° ΡΠ°Π±ΠΎΡ Π²ΠΎ Π²ΡΠ΅Ρ
ΡΡΠ΅ΡΠ°Ρ
ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΠΊΠΈ (Π΄ΠΎΠ±ΡΡΠ° ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡΡΠΎΠ² - ΡΡΡΠΎΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΡΡΠ²ΠΎ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΏΡΠΈΡΡΠΈΠΉ Π΄Π»Ρ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ°Π±ΠΎΡΠΊΠΈ ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡΡΠΎΠ² - ΠΎΠ±ΡΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΊΠ°Π΄ΡΠΎΠ² Π΄Π»Ρ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ»ΡΠΆΠΈΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΏΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΏΡΠΈΡΡΠΈΠΉ - ΡΠΊΡΠΏΠΎΡΡ Π³ΠΎΡΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ΄ΡΠΊΡΠΈΠΈ). ΠΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ±Π½ΡΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Ρ
ΠΎΠ΄ Π‘ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π‘ΠΎΡΠ·Π° Π±Π»Π°Π³ΠΎΠΏΡΠΈΡΡΠ½ΠΎ Π²Π»ΠΈΡΠ» Π½Π° ΡΡΠ²Π΅ΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΡ ΠΌΠ°Π»ΠΈΠΉΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΠΊΠΈ
Π‘ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΡΠΊΠΈΠ΅ ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ Π½Π΅ΠΎΠΊΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ°
The article reviews Soviet and East German studies of neocolonialism that have been translated into Russian. A total of more than 60 monographs on Western neocolonialism have been systematically studied and finally compiled into an electronic archive in preparation for this publication. Based on the materials of Soviet studies, the article presents the main features of Western neocolonialism, related both to political manoeuvres and the economic arsenal of the former metropolitan powers. A detailed analysis of the narratives used by Western countries to emphasize their proximity to the βThird Worldβ is given. Particular attention is paid to neocolonial theories, both βvariants of well-known bourgeois and reformist concepts addressed to developing countriesβ and βconcepts and theories specially created to support neocolonialism.β Neocolonial approaches were studied both in the context of individual Western countries and groups of states (Great Britain, France, Germany, the European Economic Community (EEC), USA) and by functional areas (technical assistance, food neocolonialism, international organizations). Regarding the UK, the differences in neocolonial policy between Labor Party and Conservatives are examined. The main instruments of Franceβs neocolonial policy are described and it is concluded that they have hardly changed in recent decades. The role of the FRG in the strategy of βEuropean neocolonialismβ is shown, and major characteristics of the neocolonial policy of the EEC are highlighted. With regard to the, authors speak of a new type of imperialist colonialism associated with American leadership in the institutions of the βcollective West.β As for the United States, a new type of imperialist colonialism is being put forward, associated with Americaβs leadership in the institutions of the βcollective West.β The origins and βrunning-inβ of the US neocolonial tools are shown in detail, using the actual American colonial experience in the Philippines as an example. The main directions of critical analysis of the participation of Western countries in technical and food aid systems and in the activities of international organizations are presented. In conclusion, some remarks are formulated on the practical component of Soviet studies of neocolonialism. It is also stressed that in the mid-1980s, after the proclamation of the βNew Political Thinkingβ the critical degree of Soviet studies of neocolonialism declined significantly.ΠΡΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½ ΠΎΠ±Π·ΠΎΡ ΡΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΈ ΠΏΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½Π½ΡΡ
Π½Π° ΡΡΡΡΠΊΠΈΠΉ ΡΠ·ΡΠΊ Π²ΠΎΡΡΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³Π΅ΡΠΌΠ°Π½ΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ Π½Π΅ΠΎΠΊΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ°. Π ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΠΉ ΡΠ»ΠΎΠΆΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½ΠΎ ΡΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ½ΠΎΠ΅ ΠΈΠ·ΡΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π΅ 60 ΡΠ°Π±ΠΎΡ ΠΏΠΎ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ±Π»Π΅ΠΌΠ°ΡΠΈΠΊΠ΅ Π·Π°ΠΏΠ°Π΄Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π½Π΅ΠΎΠΊΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ°, ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΠ½Π΅Π½Π½ΡΡ
Π² ΡΠ»Π΅ΠΊΡΡΠΎΠ½Π½ΡΠΉ Π°ΡΡ
ΠΈΠ², ΡΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎ ΡΠΎΠ·Π΄Π°Π½Π½ΡΠΉ Π°Π²ΡΠΎΡΠ°ΠΌΠΈ Π΄Π°Π½Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΡΠ°Π±ΠΎΡΡ Π² Π ΠΎΡΡΠΈΠΉΡΠΊΠΎΠΌ ΡΠ½ΠΈΠ²Π΅ΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅ Π΄ΡΡΠΆΠ±Ρ Π½Π°ΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ². ΠΠΏΠΈΡΠ°ΡΡΡ Π½Π° ΠΌΠ°ΡΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ°Π»Ρ ΡΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ, Π°Π²ΡΠΎΡΡ Π²ΡΡΠ²Π»ΡΡΡ ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π½ΡΠ΅ ΠΎΡΠΎΠ±Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ Π·Π°ΠΏΠ°Π΄Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π½Π΅ΠΎΠΊΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ°, ΡΠ²ΡΠ·Π°Π½Π½ΡΠ΅ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ Ρ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠΌΠΈ ΠΌΠ°Π½Π΅Π²ΡΠ°ΠΌΠΈ, ΡΠ°ΠΊ ΠΈ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠΌ Π°ΡΡΠ΅Π½Π°Π»ΠΎΠΌ Π±ΡΠ²ΡΠΈΡ
ΠΌΠ΅ΡΡΠΎΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΠΉ. ΠΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°Π²Π»Π΅Π½ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄ΡΠΎΠ±Π½ΡΠΉ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ· Π½Π°ΡΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠ²ΠΎΠ², ΠΈΡΠΏΠΎΠ»ΡΠ·ΡΠ΅ΠΌΡΡ
Π·Π°ΠΏΠ°Π΄Π½ΡΠΌΠΈ ΡΡΡΠ°Π½Π°ΠΌΠΈ Π΄Π»Ρ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄ΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΈΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΡ ΡΠ²ΠΎΠ΅ΠΉ Π±Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΠΊ Β«ΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΡ ΠΌΠΈΡΡΒ». ΠΡΠΎΠ±ΠΎΠ΅ Π²Π½ΠΈΠΌΠ°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΡΠ΄Π΅Π»Π΅Π½ΠΎ Π½Π΅ΠΎΠΊΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠ°Π»ΠΈΡΡΡΠΊΠΈΠΌ ΡΠ΅ΠΎΡΠΈΡΠΌ, ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ Β«Π°Π΄ΡΠ΅ΡΠΎΠ²Π°Π½Π½ΡΠΌ ΡΠ°Π·Π²ΠΈΠ²Π°ΡΡΠΈΠΌΡΡ ΡΡΡΠ°Π½Π°ΠΌ Π²Π°ΡΠΈΠ°Π½ΡΠ°ΠΌ ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΠΈΠ·Π²Π΅ΡΡΠ½ΡΡ
Π±ΡΡΠΆΡΠ°Π·Π½ΡΡ
ΠΈ ΡΠ΅ΡΠΎΡΠΌΠΈΡΡΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ΅ΠΏΡΠΈΠΉΒ», ΡΠ°ΠΊ ΠΈ Β«ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ΅ΠΏΡΠΈΡΠΌ ΠΈ ΡΠ΅ΠΎΡΠΈΡΠΌ, ΡΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎ ΡΠΎΠ·Π΄Π°Π½Π½ΡΠΌ Π΄Π»Ρ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Π΄Π΅ΡΠΆΠΊΠΈ Π½Π΅ΠΎΠΊΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ°Β». ΠΠ΅ΠΎΠΊΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠ΅ ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Ρ
ΠΎΠ΄Ρ ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΡΡΡΡΡ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ Π² ΡΠ°Π·ΡΠ΅Π·Π΅ ΠΎΡΠ΄Π΅Π»ΡΠ½ΡΡ
Π·Π°ΠΏΠ°Π΄Π½ΡΡ
ΡΡΡΠ°Π½ ΠΈ Π³ΡΡΠΏΠΏ ΡΡΡΠ°Π½ (ΠΠ΅Π»ΠΈΠΊΠΎΠ±ΡΠΈΡΠ°Π½ΠΈΡ, Π€ΡΠ°Π½ΡΠΈΡ, Π€Π΅Π΄Π΅ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΠ²Π½Π°Ρ Π Π΅ΡΠΏΡΠ±Π»ΠΈΠΊΠ° ΠΠ΅ΡΠΌΠ°Π½ΠΈΡ (Π€Π Π), ΠΠ²ΡΠΎΠΏΠ΅ΠΉΡΠΊΠΎΠ΅ ΡΠΊΠΎΠ½ΠΎΠΌΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ΅ ΡΠΎΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²ΠΎ (ΠΠΠ‘), Π‘Π¨Π), ΡΠ°ΠΊ ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎ ΡΡΠ½ΠΊΡΠΈΠΎΠ½Π°Π»ΡΠ½ΡΠΌ ΡΡΠ΅ΡΠ°ΠΌ (ΡΠ΅Ρ
Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠ°Ρ ΠΏΠΎΠΌΠΎΡΡ, ΠΏΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ»ΡΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΡΠΉ Π½Π΅ΠΎΠΊΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΌ, ΠΌΠ΅ΠΆΠ΄ΡΠ½Π°ΡΠΎΠ΄Π½ΡΠ΅ ΠΎΡΠ³Π°Π½ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΠΈ). ΠΡΠΈΠΌΠ΅Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎ ΠΊ ΠΠ΅Π»ΠΈΠΊΠΎΠ±ΡΠΈΡΠ°Π½ΠΈΠΈ ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΡΡΡΡΡ ΡΠ°Π·Π»ΠΈΡΠΈΡ Π² Π½Π΅ΠΎΠΊΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠ΅ ΠΌΠ΅ΠΆΠ΄Ρ Π»Π΅ΠΉΠ±ΠΎΡΠΈΡΡΠ°ΠΌΠΈ ΠΈ ΠΊΠΎΠ½ΡΠ΅ΡΠ²Π°ΡΠΎΡΠ°ΠΌΠΈ. ΠΠΏΠΈΡΠ°Π½Ρ ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΆΠ΅ ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π½ΡΠ΅ ΠΈΠ½ΡΡΡΡΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΡ Π½Π΅ΠΎΠΊΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠΈ Π€ΡΠ°Π½ΡΠΈΠΈ ΠΈ ΡΠ΄Π΅Π»Π°Π½ Π²ΡΠ²ΠΎΠ΄ ΠΎΠ± ΠΈΡ
ΠΏΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ Π½Π΅ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ Π½Π° ΠΏΡΠΎΡΡΠΆΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΡΠ»Π΅Π΄Π½ΠΈΡ
Π΄Π΅ΡΡΡΠΈΠ»Π΅ΡΠΈΠΉ. ΠΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°Π½Π° ΡΠΎΠ»Ρ Π€Π Π Π² ΡΡΡΠ°ΡΠ΅Π³ΠΈΠΈ Β«Π΅Π²ΡΠΎΠΏΠ΅ΠΉΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π½Π΅ΠΎΠΊΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ°Β», Π° ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΆΠ΅ Π²ΡΠ΄Π΅Π»Π΅Π½Ρ ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π½ΡΠ΅ ΠΎΡΠΎΠ±Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ Π½Π΅ΠΎΠΊΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΠΊΠΈ ΠΠΠ‘. Π ΡΠ»ΡΡΠ°Π΅ Π‘Π¨Π Π°Π²ΡΠΎΡΡ Π²ΡΡΠ²Π»ΡΡΡ ΡΠ΅ΡΡΡ ΠΈΠΌΠΏΠ΅ΡΠΈΠ°Π»ΠΈΡΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΊΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ° Π½ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡΠΈΠΏΠ°, ΡΠ²ΡΠ·Π°Π½Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Ρ Π°ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΈΠΊΠ°Π½ΡΠΊΠΈΠΌ Π»ΠΈΠ΄Π΅ΡΡΡΠ²ΠΎΠΌ Π² ΠΈΠ½ΡΡΠΈΡΡΡΠ°Ρ
Β«ΠΊΠΎΠ»Π»Π΅ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΠ°ΠΏΠ°Π΄Π°Β». ΠΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°Π½Ρ ΠΈΡΡΠΎΠΊΠΈ ΠΈ Β«ΠΎΠ±ΠΊΠ°ΡΠΊΠ°Β» Π½Π΅ΠΎΠΊΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΈΠ½ΡΡΡΡΠΌΠ΅Π½ΡΠ°ΡΠΈΡ Π‘Π¨Π Π½Π° ΠΏΡΠΈΠΌΠ΅ΡΠ΅ ΡΠ΅Π°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΊΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠ°Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΎΠΏΡΡΠ° Π½Π° Π€ΠΈΠ»ΠΈΠΏΠΏΠΈΠ½Π°Ρ
. ΠΡΠ΅Π΄ΡΡΠ°Π²Π»Π΅Π½Ρ ΠΎΡΠ½ΠΎΠ²Π½ΡΠ΅ Π½Π°ΠΏΡΠ°Π²Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π°Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΠ·Π° ΡΡΠ°ΡΡΠΈΡ Π·Π°ΠΏΠ°Π΄Π½ΡΡ
ΡΡΡΠ°Π½ Π² ΡΠΈΡΡΠ΅ΠΌΠ°Ρ
ΡΠ΅Ρ
Π½ΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΠΈ ΠΏΡΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ»ΡΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΠΌΠΎΡΠΈ, Π° ΡΠ°ΠΊΠΆΠ΅ Π² Π΄Π΅ΡΡΠ΅Π»ΡΠ½ΠΎΡΡΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅ΠΆΠ΄ΡΠ½Π°ΡΠΎΠ΄Π½ΡΡ
ΠΎΡΠ³Π°Π½ΠΈΠ·Π°ΡΠΈΠΉ. Π Π·Π°ΠΊΠ»ΡΡΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΈ Π΄Π΅Π»Π°Π΅ΡΡΡ Π²ΡΠ²ΠΎΠ΄ ΠΎ ΠΏΡΠ°ΠΊΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠΉ ΡΠΎΡΡΠ°Π²Π»ΡΡΡΠ΅ΠΉ ΡΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ Π½Π΅ΠΎΠΊΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ°. Π’Π°ΠΊΠΆΠ΅ ΠΎΡΠΌΠ΅ΡΠ°Π΅ΡΡΡ, ΡΡΠΎ Π² ΡΠ΅ΡΠ΅Π΄ΠΈΠ½Π΅ 1980-Ρ
Π³Π³. ΠΏΠΎΡΠ»Π΅ ΠΏΡΠΈΠ½ΡΡΠΈΡ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠΆΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠΉ Β«Π½ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΠΈΡΠΈΡΠ΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΌΡΡΠ»Π΅Π½ΠΈΡΒ» ΠΎΠ±ΡΠ΅ΠΌ ΡΠΎΠ²Π΅ΡΡΠΊΠΈΡ
ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ Π½Π΅ΠΎΠΊΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ½ΠΈΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ° ΡΡΡΠ΅ΡΡΠ²Π΅Π½Π½ΠΎ ΡΠ½ΠΈΠ·ΠΈΠ»ΡΡ