When environmental conditions are complex and uncertain, stakeholders create networks of interdependencies. This process is sometimes called bridging , or strategic partnership . It can be implemented in different forms: as joint business with regular buyers of products, various forms of cooperation with competitors, the creation of joint ventures in the implementation of various types of international strategies, association for lobbying efforts at the industry level, etc. Recent studies have shown that strategic partnership is a means of reducing both the uncertainty arising from unpredictable environmental demands and the pressures resulting from the high level of interdependence between organizations.

Partnering techniques allow companies to bridge with stakeholders in pursuit of common goals, while traditional tactics (damping or mitigating the negative impact of environmental factors) simply reduce the level of undesirable consequences and help meet their needs or requirements. Partnership can lead to timely and complete information about stakeholders, increased trust and improved corporate reputation.

The potential benefits of active partnership tactics can be illustrated using customer relationships as an example. Companies with a traditional distance from customers focus on information about the need for new products and expected demand in accordance with existing quality and service offered in order to protect themselves from demand uncertainty and possible customer complaints. With active partnership tactics, a firm can choose to create stronger relationships with customers by involving them directly in its product development programs, ongoing product improvement, modernization and development programs, product planning and work schedules (via computer networks). Active stakeholder management techniques build interdependencies rather than prevent them. By working closely with customers, the firm is more likely to gain better information about the direction of the market, anticipate future needs for improved and new products, maximize the likelihood of success and minimize the time required to develop and introduce new products to the market, and build relationships of trust and mutual respect between groups. stakeholders associated with it. The method of active creative bridging is to create common goals rather than simply accommodating stakeholder initiatives.

It would be wrong to say that strategic partnerships have only benefits. There are also weaknesses here. For example, conflicts arising from differences in the corporate cultures of the bridging participants may weaken cooperation between firms and prevent the emergence of partnerships. Strong ties to one stakeholder may cause a firm to distance or limit ties to another to avoid conflicts of interest, ethical violations, or loss of confidential information. Moreover, joint decision-making can take significantly more time, be drawn out, and result in too many compromises. Small businesses often find partnership tactics acceptable for entering some industries where barriers to entry are high, but they also run the risk of being completely overwhelmed by their partner. Overall, the benefits of bridging outweigh its disadvantages and dangers if partnership tactics are applied correctly.

Creation of network organizations is currently one of the most effective methods for managing internal and external stakeholders. The large, vertically integrated companies that dominated the economies of developed countries during the first three quarters of the last century arose to serve a growing market with goods and ensure efficient organization of production. Later, in particular in the 1980s, the market situation in the world changed dramatically, as did the range of goods supplied to markets. Modern competition requires high productivity and production efficiency. Firms must respond more and more quickly to market demands and competitors' innovations and at the same time control and even reduce prices for their goods and services.

Faced with such demands, large enterprises designed for the conditions of the 1950s and 1960s. and linking the search for significant savings with centralized planning and management mechanisms, for obvious reasons, turned out to be untenable. The decline in the efficiency of firms with traditional structures has led to a new business situation. Success in competition is now associated not with the accumulation of resources and control, but with the production of fewer goods of higher quality at lower costs. In particular, managers who want their companies to compete successfully in the 21st century are required to:

• o search for favorable opportunities and resources around the world;
• o maximizing the return on any investment in business, regardless of who owns the invested funds - the company where the managers work, or other companies;
• o carrying out only those operations that the company can or will be able, after additional training, to carry out at a high professional level;
• o transfer to contractors those operations that other companies can perform faster, more efficiently or at lower costs.

Not surprisingly, firms that follow these precepts often find themselves organized into networks that provide bridging between their own firm and its stakeholders. One group of stakeholders - network participants - can conduct research and development of a product, another can take over the development of technology and production of a product, a third can become a distributor, etc. When a large number of stakeholders are involved in the interaction, competition arises at every link in the production and distribution chain of a product or service, and the laws of the market have a significant impact on decision-making related to the allocation of resources. Using a network structure, a firm can conduct its business both innovatively and efficiently by focusing its efforts on the things it does well and contracting with other firms to obtain missing resources. On the other hand, she can take part in a new business with minimal financial risk and optimally representing her unique professional skills and experience.

“It was not we who spoiled them, and we always stand for normal relations with all states, both in the East and in the West.” (Vladimir Putin about relations with partners)

Today, only a lazy politician of a particular country does not use this vague connective - strategic partner. Strategic partner in business, foreign policy, etc. In an attempt to clarify for oneself the meaning of these two words using a specific example—Russia—several pictures pop up at once—China, India, Cuba... and a number of other countries that usually oppose themselves to the United States and its vision of strategic partnership.

There is an opinion that Russia has fewer and fewer partners and friends in foreign policy. In fact, this is far from the case. Most of Russia’s strategic partners have not changed their attitude towards Russia, with the exception of distraught Turkey, already a former strategic partner, and a number of EU countries. By the way, the leaders of the European Union countries have repeatedly stated that the real attitude towards Russia differs from the antipathies forced from outside. However, today we will list the main key, strategically important partners of Russia, whose relations have become stronger and more reliable over the years.

Russia and Cuba

One of the most striking examples of strategic partnership between two countries is Cuba and the USSR during the Cuban missile crisis. When America broke off all relations with Cuba, declaring a naval and economic blockade on this small country, the USSR came to the rescue, becoming an indispensable supplier of everything that Cuba needed and that the Americans had previously supplied there. As a result, Cuba has been reoriented to a large extent towards our standards and our technologies, including military ones.

After the collapse of the USSR, relations were lost and Russian influence on the island was reduced to a minimum. Aid to Cuba stopped, and a humanitarian catastrophe began on the island. Russia’s second arrival on Liberty Island occurred during the reign of the current Russian President, Vladimir Putin. Diplomatic relations between the two countries were restored, and embassies of the two countries reappeared.

Fun fact: Russian-Cuban diplomatic relations were established in 1902. After the October Revolution in Russia, they were actually torn apart and restored only in October 1942. Cuba (like almost all Latin American countries) did not recognize Soviet Russia for a long time. Nevertheless, unofficial ties between the two countries continued - in 1925, Mayakovsky visited Cuba on his way to Mexico, and in 1931, the white emigrant Yavorsky became the head of the first professional ballet school on the island.

In 1952, through a coup in Cuba, Fulgencio Batista, a military dictator and American protege who worked closely with the American mafia and the US leadership, came to power for the second time. During his reign, American monopolies controlled almost 70% of the Cuban economy, and relations with the USSR deteriorated sharply. That same year, Stalin broke off diplomatic relations with Cuba. In 1959, the revolution won in Cuba, the leaders of which were Fidel and Raul Castro, Ernesto Che Guevara, after which Fidel Castro came to power, and in 1960 diplomatic relations were restored.

The attitude of the Soviet leadership towards the new Cuban government remained uncertain until the United States attempted to overthrow Castro by force in April 1961 during the failed operation in the Bay of Cochins.

In May 1961, Fidel openly proclaimed that Cuba would follow the socialist path of development. This dramatically changed the Kremlin's attitude towards Cuba. Soviet engineers, military specialists and weapons immediately went to Liberty Island to prevent a repeat of the American intervention.

In 1962, Raul Castro visited the USSR, where he met with Nikita Khrushchev. They agreed that in order to secure Cuba from American aggression, Soviet medium-range missiles should be stationed on the island. On October 14, 1962, the Americans discovered the deployment of Soviet nuclear weapons in Cuba, and the Cuban Missile Crisis broke out. The world was on the verge of World War III, where two superpowers, armed to the teeth - the USA and the USSR, were ready at any moment to move from words to deeds...

In essence, strategic partnership in security matters then and now implies the presence of a common enemy. And such an enemy for Cuba and the USSR, and now for the Russian Federation, is “US policy.” I want to emphasize that it is not the state itself, but the specific policies of those in power, and the residents of this country themselves have nothing to do with it...

As mentioned above, a new round of relations between the Russian Federation and Cuba occurs during the reign of the current President of the Russian Federation, Vladimir Putin. On July 12, 2014, Vladimir Putin visited Cuba as part of a trip to Latin America and met with Chairman of the Council of Ministers of Cuba Raul Castro. Before this, he wrote off 90% of Cuba's debts to the USSR, and the remaining 10% ($3.5 billion) is supposed to be invested in the Cuban economy by repaying it in equal semi-annual payments over 10 years...

Thus, strategically important relations with Cuba were restored in all key areas: healthcare, industry, culture, military-technical issues, cooperation in the space sector...

Another strategic partner of Russia, China, has also succeeded in cooperation with Cuba, where it is actively involved in Internet and communications issues in this area. The volume of Chinese investments in Cuba increased by 57%... It is obvious that Russia and China, the two most successful strategic partners, are interested in cooperation with Cuba according to pre-agreed plans for joint actions. According to the principle - friends of my friends are my friends, as well as enemies... And the desperate attempts of a suddenly enlightened America to restore relations with Cuba look, to put it mildly, ridiculous. It is impossible to erase the historical memory of the Cuban people, it is unrealistic to make amends... The moment for restoring strategically important relations between the United States and Cuba has been missed.

Russia and China

Relations between Russia and China are of key importance in Russian foreign policy. China in the current conditions is Russia's main partner and ally - both in military-political and economic terms. The economies of Russia and China complement each other well, and the threat posed by the NATO bloc is pushing our countries to create a defensive alliance.

China's most important goal is to create the so-called New Silk Road, the land part of which is a transport corridor through Kazakhstan and Russia to Europe. Also, the most important international projects that are being implemented with the participation of Russia and China are the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the BRICS Development Bank and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Bank.

The Chinese consider Russia their main ally and partner, and Russian President Vladimir Putin is the most popular foreign politician in China.

It is very typical that at the 2014 APEC summit in Beijing, the festive table at which the leaders of the Pacific countries gathered was decorated in the colors of the Russian flag - this clearly shows who the main guest is for the Chinese. At the previous APEC 2013 summit, held on the Indonesian island of Bali, Chinese leader Xi Jinping specially planned a meeting with Putin on his birthday, which they celebrated with a celebratory dinner.

Also, Xi Jinping personally came to the opening of the 2014 Sochi Olympics, which the leaders of most Western countries did not do.

On August 23, 2015, in an article for Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov noted that Russian-Chinese relations “are the best in history and continue to develop progressively.”

Strategic cooperation agreements between Russia and China: Shanghai Accords 2014

On May 20, 2014 in Shanghai, during the visit of Russian President Vladimir Putin at the head of the Russian delegation, a number of strategic agreements (46 documents in total) on cooperation between Russia and China were signed, including:

• Signed agreement on strategic cooperation between Russian and Chinese railways: Russian Railways and the Chinese Railways will jointly develop transport infrastructure (including border crossings), jointly develop tariff plans and marketing campaigns in order to create competitive tariff conditions for rail transportation on transit routes China - Russia - Europe.
• Signed cooperation agreements on the use of national currencies: VTB and Bank of China will develop partnerships in various areas, and in general, Russia and China intend to increase the volume of direct payments in national currencies in mutual trade between countries.
• Signed agreement on the creation of a Russian-Chinese wide-body long-range aircraft: United Aircraft Corporation OJSC and the Chinese corporation COMAC will create an airliner that should occupy significant market shares both in Russia and China, as well as in third countries.
• Signed memorandum on joint construction of a new bridge across the Amur: Construction should be completed by 2016, the new bridge will shorten the route for Russian cargo supplied to China by 700 kilometers, and will also allow the transportation of 21 million tons of cargo for export to China. 80% of construction will be financed by China, 20% by Russia.
• Signed cooperation agreements between a number of ministries, regions and enterprises of Russia and China.
• A contract for the purchase and sale of liquefied gas within the framework of the Yamal LNG project was signed between NOVATEK OJSC and the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC).
• Signed agreements on the implementation of a number of investment projects with the participation of China in the Far East.
• 6 contracts were signed between Eurocement Group and China CAMC Engineering for the construction of new technological lines for the production of cement in European Russia.
• A number of agreements on joint projects and cooperation in the field of mechanical engineering, chemical industry and infrastructure construction were signed.

China has announced its readiness to zero out import duties on Russian gas, and Russia - to zero out the mineral extraction tax for gas fields that will supply gas to China.

Russia and China also agreed to more closely coordinate their foreign policy steps.

The largest gas supply contract in history

On May 21, 2014, the Russian Gazprom and the China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) entered into a thirty-year gas supply agreement - the contract provides for the supply of up to 38 billion cubic meters of gas per year with a total price of $400 billion over 30 years. The exact price of gas was not announced, but it is known that it exceeds $350 per thousand cubic meters. The contract is the largest in the history of the gas industry of the USSR and Russia, and, apparently, the largest gas supply agreement in the entire history of the global gas industry.

Gazprom head Alexey Miller announced further plans for cooperation with China: “38 billion is just the beginning. Because our Chinese partners and I agreed that as soon as we sign a contract on the eastern route, we begin negotiations on the western route. But as for the western route, there is one fundamental difference in terms of the resource base: this is the same base from which we supply gas to Europe.”

Russian President Vladimir Putin said that the implementation of the project for the western route of gas supplies to China will make China the largest consumer of Russian gas in the world. According to Putin, Russia will begin the largest construction project in the world, and the Russian-Chinese energy alliance will become the pillar of the entire Asia-Pacific region.

“The Chinese people and the Russian people mutually supported, helped each other, they are comrades-in-arms in the war against fascism and militarism,” said the President of the People’s Republic of China, emphasizing that citizens of the two countries “will defend peace hand in hand and shoulder to shoulder, promote development and contribute our contribution to ensuring lasting peace on the planet and the progress of all mankind.”

Russia and India

India holds a special place among Russia’s strategically important partners. It would be very good to secure mutual support with another country whose population exceeds 1.3 billion inhabitants.

Vladimir Putin himself spoke about the strategically important partnership in 2012. On the eve of the official visit of the Russian President to India, an article by Vladimir Putin was published in the Hindu newspaper. Here are just a few important excerpts from this article:

“I am glad to have the opportunity to address the readers of one of the most influential Indian newspapers, The Hindu.” On the eve of my visit to New Delhi, I would like to outline approaches to the further development of the strategic partnership between Russia and India.

This year marks the 65th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relations between our countries. Over the past decades, we have accumulated vast experience in working together and achieved success in a variety of areas. Political eras have changed, but the principles of bilateral relations – mutual trust and equality – have remained unchanged. Let me emphasize: deepening friendship and cooperation with India is one of the priorities of our foreign policy. And we have every right to say that they are truly unique and privileged in nature.

A truly historic step was the Declaration on Strategic Partnership between Russia and India, signed in October 2000. The special significance and timeliness of this step were confirmed by developments in the first decade of the 21st century. After all, today we, and the entire civilization, face serious challenges. These are uneven global development, economic and social instability, and a lack of trust and security.

In these conditions, Russia and India are demonstrating an example of responsible leadership and collective action in the international arena.

We have a common goal - to make the world in which we live more just, democratic, secure, and to help resolve global and regional problems, including the situation in the Middle East and North Africa, and in Afghanistan.

I would like to note that our common work within the BRICS framework is becoming more and more active. Year after year, the authority of this association is strengthened. And this is natural. The initiatives we put forward are aimed at building a new architecture for a multipolar world order. The same constructive approach is manifested in our interaction in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and other multilateral formats. We are committed to a meaningful dialogue with the Indian side within the framework of the commenced Russian presidency of the G20.

Joint steps in the international arena, participation in the development of global trade rules, building up business, scientific, technical and humanitarian ties are the basis for achieving a new quality of partnership.

We attach particular importance to bilateral trade and investment relations. The growing economic potential of Russia and India is largely complementary. Our trade turnover has overcome the consequences of the global crisis, and in 2012 we expect a record figure of over $10 billion. Our next goal is to reach the level of $20 billion by 2015.

To do this, we need to use all reserves, maintain direct contacts between business circles, and stimulate the creation of effective investment, technological, and industrial alliances in the most dynamic and promising areas. For example, in the energy sector, primarily nuclear..."

Read the entire article on the official Kremlin website.

Relations between Russia and India are developing systematically and at the same time rapidly: the other day it became known that Russia and India are planning to build a gas pipeline, negotiations are planned for May this year. In addition, it is planned to discuss the possibility of supplying oil from Russia to India.

Vladimir Putin has repeatedly stated that India was, is and will be Russia’s main strategic partner in military-technical cooperation.

India accounted for 35.6% of Russia's military exports in 2013 ($4.7 billion out of $16.7 billion).

At the end of April 2015, the Federation Council named the largest buyers of Russian weapons. The bulk of supplies in 2014 came from India (28 percent), followed by Iraq (11 percent), China (9 percent), Vietnam (7 percent) and Venezuela (6 percent).

It is indicative that 60-80% of weapons in India come from Russian exports. It is our weapons that are recognized by the Indian authorities as the highest quality in the world. India does not skimp and purchases almost all types of weapons, including submarines. India's helicopter fleet numbers more than 400 aircraft and by 2017 will be replenished with another 50 aircraft. The strength of Russia's military exports is very good.

Cooperation between Russia and India in recent years in the oil industry has been very beneficial. A prominent representative of Russia is the Rosneft company, which signed a series of important documents with the Indian side emphasizing the “transition from energy dependence to an energy partnership between the two countries.”

India currently claims to be one of the leaders influencing the global oil market. The fact is that consumption in the country is growing at a rapid pace. Experts are already suggesting that India may overtake Japan in terms of oil consumption. Considering that with the increase in the purchasing power of Indian citizens and companies, the growth in fuel consumption will only increase, it is likely that India will be able to, if not overtake, then come close to China and the United States, which are now leaders in oil consumption. Thus, thanks to the cooperation of Rosneft with Indian partners, it will be possible to strengthen Russia’s position in the global oil market.

Other countries are Russia's strategic partners

South Africa.“The Republic of South Africa is Russia’s leading and reliable strategic partner in Africa. We cooperate constructively in almost all areas. This also applies to the bilateral format, this applies to work in various international organizations, such as the UN, BRICS, WTO, IAEA." (Vladimir Putin at a meeting with his South African counterpart Jacob Zuma)

Brazil. Just like South Africa, India, China is part of a strategic partnership with Russia within the framework of the BRICS project. Brazil became Russia's official strategic partner only on October 18, 2005, when the heads of the two countries signed the “Russian-Brazilian Strategic Alliance.”

It is important to note that Brazil is Russia’s largest trading partner in Latin America: in 2007–2013, Brazil accounted for 29.7% of Russian exports to Latin America and 45.4% of imports from the Russian Federation to this region. True, trade volumes in absolute numbers are small - the annual trade turnover of the two countries in 2011 amounted to only $1.9 billion. In total, from 2007 to 2013, the value of exports from the Russian Federation to Brazil amounted to $12.4 billion, and Brazilian imports for the same period amounted to $27.6 billion. Brazil is one of the main suppliers of raw sugar, coffee, beef and pork to the Russian Federation, and fertilizers make up a significant share of Russian exports.

Russia and Brazil are unique among other giant states because they have reserves of natural resources and minerals incomparable to any other country. Take, for example, fresh water, the global shortage of which, according to scientists, will begin to be felt in the 20s of this century. Brazil and Russia share the world championship in its reserves.

Brazil, like Russia, is also rich in rare earth and non-ferrous metals, the possession of which guarantees the independent development of their scientific and technological potential for many years to come. According to estimates by Brazilian researcher M. Bruckmann, US dependence on certain non-ferrous and rare earth metals concentrated in Latin America varies from 49 to 100%. Thus, for niobium alone, which is actively used in the aerospace industry (Brazil owns 98% of its world reserves), the US dependence is 85%.

In recent years, cooperation between the two countries in the field of energy has noticeably intensified - the participation of Russian companies in the construction of hydroelectric power stations in Brazil. The foundation was laid for cooperation in the field of joint development of Brazil's fuel resources and the implementation of energy projects in other Latin American countries.

CIS. Also, the main strategic partners are neighboring countries. The most prominent representatives are fraternal Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, Azerbadjan, Abkhazia... For obvious reasons, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine dropped out of the list of strategically important partners...

Latin America. The European Union's support for sanctions against Russia caused a sharp reassessment of relations, both diplomatic and strategically important. The question arose: who will we be friends with? Having introduced retaliatory sanctions against the European Union, Moscow turned towards its new Latin American partners, who had long dreamed of establishing new business contacts and increasing trade exchanges with Russia. Russia has begun negotiations with diplomats from a number of Latin American countries on the replacement of those products that it has banned from purchasing from the European Union, the United States and other countries, in particular Australia, Canada and Norway, namely: meat, meat and dairy products, fruits, vegetables and fresh fish. They are one of the main items of Latin American export.

Currently, the most large-scale Russian-Latin American projects are being implemented in the field of energy: construction of hydroelectric power stations, nuclear power plants, oil and gas production. Things are also going well with the supply of Russian weapons. Especially to Venezuela, which has become the second importer of Russian weapons after India.

The second most important trading partner in Latin America is Argentina, the volume of mutual trade with which amounts to billion 873 million dollars; followed by Venezuela: $1 billion 732 million; Mexico: billion 414 million; Ecuador: billion 299 million; Peru: 725 million; Chile: 455 million and Cuba: 225 million...

Argentina exports dried fruits, meat and dairy products, and purchases nuclear reactors, vehicles and pharmaceutical products from Russia.

To summarize, it can be emphasized that Russia’s strategic partners today are those countries where the spheres of influence of Washington or the European Union are weakened or are unacceptable by the leaders of these countries. The expansion of Russia's cooperation with Latin America and other countries that are Russia's strategic partners has reshaped the standard ideas about the key players in the international arena in both geopolitical and geo-economic rivalry.

I remember one of Vladimir Putin’s last meetings with German businessmen in Moscow, where he expressed a very important thought:

“Germany is Russia’s second-largest trading partner in terms of trade turnover after China, and both sides should value this.

— We have many good promising projects, and I hope that your interest in cooperation with Russia with your partners will only increase and you will not miss your opportunities in the Russian market. It would be foolish to test the accumulated potential of cooperation and miss the opportunities that the Russian market provides. For our part, we have done and will do everything to create the most favorable conditions for all our foreign partners.”

It is obvious that Europe must also wake up and take courage. Independently and independently express your vision of partnership in relations with the country whose market is the most favorable and in demand. “And to miss this opportunity,” as the President of Russia emphasized, “is stupid.”

And a little more about the persistent myth that supposedly the whole world is against Russia.

All our BRICS partners: Brazil, India, China, South Africa - four countries that, together with Russia, account for 43% of the planet's population. If we include here other countries that are also partners of Russia, it turns out that the majority of humanity lives in those countries that advocate cooperation/partnership with Russia, and not against it.

It is obvious that most of the planet clearly does not sympathize with the Western idea of ​​a unipolar world, perceiving tough and unyielding Russia as the only country capable of putting an end to the dominance of some countries over others.”

The initial stage of political science analysis of international cooperation was characterized by a lack of consistency and complexity. The situation began to change in the 1980s, when the attention of scientists began to attract such issues as geopolitical and national causes, forms, content, goals and consequences of intercountry relations. The phrase “strategic partnership” has increasingly become used in the media and public rhetoric, and has now become firmly entrenched in the conceptual apparatus of international cooperation.

So what is strategic partnership in modern international relations, what is its essence and how does it differ from other types of bilateral or multilateral cooperation? How do relations between countries evolve into the stage of strategic partnership and on what factors does this process depend?

“Strategic partnership” relations. Despite the fact that this term has become regularly used in international documents, in scientific literature, the media and in everyday life, it has not been sufficiently studied both in foreign and domestic political science. The term “strategic partnership” is increasingly being used in business as well. Moreover, such a partner is recognized as a company that cooperates on a long-term basis in solving its most important tasks during the reconstruction or reform of the company.

The concept of “strategic partnership” appeared in the political lexicon relatively recently. The concept of strategic partnership in international relations began to be actively promoted with the end of the Cold War era. They began to talk about strategic partnership earlier in the Eurasian space than in North America, because with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, the end of the bipolarity of the world and the onset of “troubled and uncertain times,” many countries, including Russia, China, and India, experienced the “ loneliness” caused by the need to deal face-to-face with the only superpower. In the early 1990s, strategic partnership became opportunistic, because some states tried to use it as a kind of shield to ensure their security, others as a “Trojan horse” to penetrate into a new political space, and still others as a “golden key” to solve their economic interests. However, the widespread use of the term began a little later, but by the will of history it happened already in the next century and millennium.

This chronological contextualization of the concept of “strategic partnership” is proven by linguistic sources, in particular modern lexicography of the English language. In his unpublished article, which can be translated as “Strategic partnership as a new form of association in international relations?”, doctoral student at the University of Bielefeld (Germany) Louis Blanco gives the following examples:

1. The British National Corpus consists of an impressive collection of texts in English from 1980 to 1993, taken from various newspapers, books, magazines. A search for the phrase strategic partnership returned only 6 cases, and not once in the context of international relations.

2. The Corpus of Historical American English is represented by a huge variety of texts compiled in the USA in 1810-2000. Search results: The term “strategic partnership” was used in only 11 cases, only once in 1980, and was not related to foreign policy. In the 1990s, it met 5 times and in all cases it was about US bilateral relations with other countries. The concept of “strategic partnership” was first recorded in 1992, when the text talked about American-Turkish relations. And in the 2000s, the concept that interests us in all 5 cases was mentioned in the context of international relations.

3. A search in the final source - the Corpus of Contemporary American English with a text database for the period 1990-2010 (Corpus of Contemporary American English) - produced the following results: one use in 1990-1994; 29 - in 1995-1999; 33 - in 2000-2004; 45 - in 2005-2010.

Thus, the constant expansion of the discourse of “strategic partnership” in international relations is quite obvious from a scientific point of view, which is proven not only politically, but also linguistically.

Since the concept of “strategic partnership” is complex, before defining this phenomenon, let us turn to the etymology of the words that constitute the term itself. Strategy(ancient Greek Στρατηγία “the art of a commander”), according to the dictionary definition, is a general plan of current activity, covering a long period of time, the main ways to achieve a complex goal. Strategy as a method of action becomes necessary in a situation where, in order to achieve the main goal, there are not enough available resources. The strategy achieves the main goal through solving intermediate tactical tasks along the “resources - goal” axis. The foreign policy strategy of a state can be represented as a pyramid, where at the top there is a strategic goal that determines the further hierarchy of goals and objectives. Developing a strategy means identifying priority goals and using resources to achieve them.

Thus, a state's foreign policy strategy determines the means and methods for achieving its goals or partner states (allies) in maintaining and increasing its power or alliance of states.

The term "partnership" in its most general sense can be defined as "a relationship between individuals or groups characterized by mutual cooperation and responsibility to achieve some goal." This formulation assumes that the parties are engaged in a mutually beneficial relationship for some purpose and are responsible for ensuring that their decisions are consistent with the interests of the partner.

If we combine the definitions of “strategy” and “partnership” and transfer them to the field of international relations, we get the following general definition of strategic partnership in international relations: “long-term mutually beneficial cooperation of equal entities at the international level to achieve common goals in order to solve national and state problems.”

The formulated essential definition of the concept of “strategic partnership” provides only a framework of the content of what it is or what it should be in the practice of international cooperation.

It is necessary to characterize in more detail what features of international relations this term implies. The practical relevance of this task is to establish how applicable the concept of “strategic partnership” is to the modern relations of the Republic of Kazakhstan with the outside world, in particular with South Korea. It is necessary to examine the aspects of the relationship that allow it to move to the strategic level, as well as those that prevent it from doing so. The term “strategic partnership” has firmly entered the lexicon of politicians, and it is often used when it is necessary to emphasize the special significance of a relationship or a current moment. It is obvious that in each specific case, politicians mean by strategic partnership a different degree of elaboration of relations and agenda. Sometimes there are paradoxical interpretations of the concept of “strategic partnership”. For example, President B. Tadić stated that Serbia has four pillars of foreign policy: the EU, Russia, the USA and China, and that in the long term they will be the main doctrine in foreign policy activities. He also stressed to the Politika newspaper that it cannot be overlooked for a single moment that Serbia has EU membership as its central political goal, and assessed that its strategic partnership with the United States, Russia and China does not interfere with the achievement of this goal.

But what kind of strategic partnership can there be with a state that does not recognize the territorial integrity of Serbia and, moreover, encourages the separation of Kosovo from Serbia, which the latter does not recognize?

The above example suggests that the use of the term “strategic partnership” is not always justified, as a result of which its significance is largely devalued. It has lost its original meaning as an allied relationship or partnership between countries in solving their main tasks in the field of national security and foreign policy, designed to create favorable conditions for internal development. This term rather means the establishment of simple, friendly long-term relations, what was previously called “most favored nation treatment” in trade and economic contacts between states. It is no coincidence that Jonathan Hoslag divided his article on the strategic partnership between the EU and China into two parts:

1. The Strategic Partnership on Paper (“Strategic Partnership on Paper”);
2. The Strategic Partnership in Practice.

In order to distinguish a strategic partnership in words and on paper from the real one in practice, to outline a circle outside of which other types of international relations will remain, the following can be taken as its basic criteria:

The existence of fundamentally important goals, the achievement of which is possible only with serious coordination of the efforts of the parties in the long term;

A common understanding of the goals and principles of development of strategic partnership between the parties;

The presence of a legal framework for partnership, which sets out the content of cooperation and the mechanisms for its implementation;

The existence of institutional mechanisms through which strategic partnerships are implemented.

Multi-vectorism in international relations does not exclude the exclusivity of ties with particularly significant, vital partner states.

In the conditions of growing interdependence between the subjects of international relations in the era of globalization, not a single country in the world, regardless of its resource and power potential or degree of development, can not be influenced by external forces. No country, no matter how powerful it is militarily and economically, can cope with the most pressing problems of our time in isolation from other countries. They can only be resisted within the framework of close international cooperation. In such conditions, the task of individual states is to quickly adapt to the new environment by revising previous approaches and developing new ones on key issues of foreign and domestic policy.

According to experts, the essence of a strategic partnership is the existence of such interstate interaction that allows partners, by joining forces, to achieve vital domestic and foreign policy goals.

Thus, strategic partnership includes 5 main components that distinguish it from other types of international relations.

Firstly, strategic partnerships require explicit common goals, objectives and interests.

Secondly, it is distinguished by its duration and constancy over time.

Third, goals in a strategic partnership must be multidimensional and spread across areas of economic, political and military interests.

Fourthly, strategic partnership has a global level.

And finally fifthly, incentives and goals must be of such a nature that they cannot be achieved in other types of international relations, only in strategic partnerships.

Ultimately, these 5 variables are the essence of a strategic partnership. Its reliability is determined by the mutual readiness of the parties to take into account each other’s interests, the presence of effective mechanisms for implementing cooperation, and the discipline of partnership relations.

Aziza ALMUKANOVA

"HR Officer. Personnel Management (Personnel Management)", 2013, N 5

BUSINESS AND HR: RULES OF STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP

In business practice in recent years, the phrase “HR is a strategic partner” has appeared and began to be actively used. Elena Loginova, senior vice president, director of the HR department at Renaissance Credit, shares her thoughts on this topic and her experience of building a successful strategic partnership between HR and business in an interview.

Elena, what does this mean for business and for HR - strategic partnership? And how relevant is this for Russian companies?

The strategic partnership between HR and business is a natural stage in the evolution of the HR service from yesterday's HR department. But there are not so many organizations where HR is a full-fledged business advisor, and there are only a few companies where HR is an equal partner who has a significant influence on the business and development strategy of the company, makes business decisions and implements changes.

Every year competition in all areas of business intensifies. All companies, international and local, are looking for ways to optimize and develop resources such as capital, technology, invest in innovation and in creating a strong brand. However, unfortunately, not everyone is ready to develop strategies and invest in the development of often the most expensive and valuable resource - personnel.

The role of “human resources”, as well as the dependence of a business on them, of course, varies greatly from industry to industry, and it is difficult to find any area of ​​​​activity where this influence is completely absent. Even behind companies whose success is associated with innovation and new technologies, there are people who are geniuses, ideological inspirers, and implementers of these innovative ideas. So why, despite the obviousness of this factor, in conditions of intensifying competition, not all business leaders are ready to admit that HR performs one of the key functions in achieving results? Think of a CEO in your business circle who grew up in HR. Unfortunately, I don’t know of such examples. For me, the theme of HR as an equal partner of business is the basis, the philosophy of all HR activities. I believe that strong HR is necessary for a company's success, and that with its help, an organization can increase sales, enter new markets, develop new products and be a leader in the competition.

So how can you become a full partner and enable the business to feel the need for strong, professional and strategic HR? What competencies should an HR or HR manager have for a business to be ready to recognize him as a partner?

All HR practices and technologies have long been known and are not a secret. We all understand that a company must have a competency model, use an assessment center in selection and promotion, deal with talent and have succession planning, have a direct connection between assessment and reward, develop leaders, develop an employer brand, and build a corporate culture. However, even having all these tools does not guarantee a strategic role for HR.

I would highlight five basic rules for building a successful long-term strategic partnership between HR and business.

Firstly, HR strategy should not exist separately, but should be part of the overall company strategy. That is, the HR strategy should be based on the goals and objectives of the organization. Moreover, such an HR strategy does not always reflect general HR trends. For example, replicated talent development programs should be implemented and launched only in organizations where managers are ready for this and there are real prospects for talent. Otherwise, such programs will only lead to the creation of “stars” who, having not found application within their organization, will look for other opportunities in the market. Therefore, HR must clearly understand the business objectives and select HR tools that are consistent with the implementation of the business strategy.

Secondly, HR needs to know and understand the business well. This, in my opinion, is one of the key conditions without which it is difficult to be a real business partner. If the HR director is a participant in all strategic meetings, HR generally understands business processes, knows and monitors business indicators, is informed about upcoming changes, then only in this case there is an equal dialogue with the business about bonus schemes and motivation systems offered by HR -decisions at the stage of launching projects, and not aimed at “putting out fires that have already arisen.”

Thirdly, HR must speak to business in a clear language - the language of numbers. The most important thing here is to avoid the basic stereotype about HR and HR expenses, which are only a necessary cost item for an organization. In fact, all HR activities are easily translated into numbers that ultimately impact the organization's bottom line. Having not just arguments, but a financial model of impact on business, it is much easier to talk with business leaders. Every HR should be ready for a dialogue about what it brings to the organization and how it affects not only costs, but also the company’s income.

Fourthly, the HR team should consist of professionals who are passionate about the overall goals of the business. One of the keys to successfully building a strong HR partner in an organization is strong personalities in key HR positions. A caring and interested approach is difficult to fake, so choose people who are ready to communicate with the business on an equal basis and who are sincerely interested in the overall result of the activity.

Fifth and finally, the organization or its top managers and shareholders must be prepared for an equal role for HR. This is the first principle that, it would seem, HR cannot always influence. At the same time, without the support of the company's top officials and recognition of the strategic role of HR, it is very difficult for him to become an equal and successful partner for the business. Indeed, in the culture of many international organizations, the role of HR is quite highly defined in advance, and it does not need to be won and proven. But, on the other hand, we all, being HR professionals involved in business, offering real tools for solving business problems, can influence the perception of the role of HR in the organization.

You said at the outset that HR as a strategic partner is a natural step in the evolution of HR. What's next - will the role of HR change? How do you imagine the existence of HR services in the company in the future?

The business world is changing and becoming more complex, so HR departments are facing new challenges. Only in partnership with business can HR help a company maximize the potential of existing professionals and managers of the organization, become a coach of business leaders, create a corporate culture in which people will feel comfortable working and developing, that is, in general, develop an HR strategy that contributes to the success of the organization. And if we talk about the ideal future role of HR, then this is not just a business partner, but the same business unit, the HR director is the same business leader, just in the role of HR, and not an HR professional trying to get to know the business. And in this case, in my opinion, in the future there is a chance of a CEO emerging from HR.

The activation of the United States in the Asia-Pacific region (APR), its desire to weaken Russia’s influence in the Far East, necessitates the search for countermeasures on the Russian side. In this regard, Russia’s friendly relations with its long-time partner and one of the main actors in this region, China, can provide invaluable assistance.

HISTORICAL BASIS

Friendly relations between the USSR and China have developed since the Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945).

In the 1930s, the USSR systematically pursued a course of political support for China as a victim of Japanese aggression. In August 1937, a Non-Aggression Treaty was signed between China and the USSR, and from 1937 to 1941, the USSR regularly supplied weapons and ammunition to China. In total, during this period, China was supplied with: 1,285 aircraft, 1.6 thousand guns, 82 tanks, 14 thousand heavy and light machine guns, 1,850 vehicles and tractors.

In 1937–1941, over 5 thousand Soviet citizens worked in China. Among them were military advisers, volunteer pilots, teachers and instructors, aircraft and tank assembly workers, aviation and road specialists, bridge workers, transport workers, doctors, etc.

The outbreak of the Great Patriotic War and the deployment of military operations in the Pacific theater led to the curtailment of cooperation between the USSR and China, but immediately after the surrender of Germany, the Soviet Union began transferring its troops to the Far East.

On August 8, 1945, the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, implementing the decisions of the Potsdam Conference, declared war on Japan. Soviet troops launched a decisive offensive in Northeast China. At the same time, Chinese troops also went on the offensive against the Japanese along the entire front.

On August 14, when it became clear that the Kwantung Army had suffered a crushing defeat, the Japanese Emperor announced Japan's surrender.

On September 2, 1945, in Tokyo Bay, on board the American battleship Missouri, representatives of the USA, Great Britain, the USSR, France and Japan signed the act of surrender of the Japanese Armed Forces, and on September 9, 1945, Chinese General He Yingqin, representing both the government of the Republic of China and the Allied Command in Southeast Asia, accepted the surrender from the commander of Japanese troops in China, General Okamura Yasuji.

POST-WAR PERIOD

After the end of the war, friendly relations between the USSR and China began to strengthen and develop successfully.

On February 14, 1950, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong signed the Treaty of Friendship, Alliance and Mutual Assistance in Moscow. This document formalized the highest level of bilateral relations – a military-political alliance.

Within a few months, this alliance was tested to its strength during the Korean War (1950–1953). During the three years that this war lasted, the Chinese “people's volunteers” fought the Americans and their allies, while the USSR at that time provided air cover for the “volunteers” and the industrial base in the northeastern provinces.

Subsequently, the USSR provided China with all possible assistance, transferring to the PRC all rights to jointly manage the Chinese Eastern Railway, withdrawing its troops from the Port Arthur naval base, and giving away Soviet military property in the city of Dalian (Dalniy). The construction and reconstruction of 50 large industrial facilities was in full swing, hundreds of Soviet specialists came to the PRC in various fields of industry, agriculture, science and technology, public administration and the media, and thousands of Chinese students studied at Soviet universities.

In 1949–1956, with the help of the USSR, basic industries were created in China, industry was nationalized and agriculture was collectivized, and massive socialist construction was launched, as a result of which the PRC became a state with a rapidly growing economy.

From 1949 to 1969, China was supplied with weapons and military equipment totaling about $4.1 billion. In addition, in 1949–1962, 650 licenses for the production of weapons and military equipment were transferred free of charge. During the period of cooperation, 5,250 military advisers and specialists were sent to the PRC, and 1,578 Chinese military personnel were trained at universities of the USSR Ministry of Defense.

However, from the late 50s of the last century, the so-called Soviet-Chinese split began, caused by the coming to power in the USSR of liberal-minded leaders led by Nikita Khrushchev. In the USSR, sharp criticism of Stalin and his policies began, which began, as it was called in the PRC, “the great war of ideas between China and the USSR.” The conflict culminated in border clashes around Damansky Island in 1969 on the Ussuri River between units of the Soviet Army and the People's Liberation Army of China. As a result of these clashes, military ties between the USSR and the PRC were terminated.

COOPERATION IS RESUMED

After a many-year break, military-technical ties between Russia and China resumed only in 1992 on the basis of the intergovernmental Agreement on military-technical cooperation, signed on November 24, 1992, and the Memorandum of Understanding between the governments of Russia and the People's Republic of China on military-technical cooperation, which was signed December 18, 1992. In accordance with the agreement, a Russian-Chinese commission on military-technical cooperation was formed, which meets once a year alternately in Moscow and Beijing.

On November 11, 1993, an Agreement on Military Cooperation was signed between the defense ministries of the two countries. From that moment on, direct ties were established between the Russian Armed Forces and the People's Liberation Army of China.

The regulatory framework for Russian-Chinese relations was the signing on July 16, 2001 in Moscow by the President of the Russian Federation and the Chairman of the People's Republic of China of the Treaty on Good Neighbourliness, Friendship and Cooperation, which was concluded for 20 years with the possibility of automatic extension for subsequent five-year periods. In accordance with the agreement, Russia and China pledged to develop an equal partnership and strategic interaction on a long-term basis, including in the military sphere. In the event of a threat to peace or a threat of aggression, Moscow and Beijing immediately enter into contact and hold consultations in order to eliminate the threat that has arisen. The treaty also provides for the joint efforts of the parties to maintain a global strategic balance and coordination of actions in the international arena in the prevention and resolution of conflicts.

As part of the Cooperation Agreement, Russia supplied China with a large amount of military equipment and weapons.

In particular, in 1992–2000, Russia supplied China with 281 Su-27/30 heavy fighters, 1 thousand Krasnopol guided artillery shells, and 1.2 thousand short-range air-to-air missiles. In addition, the Russian side transferred licenses to China for the production of Su-27 fighters.

In 1999–2000, China received two Project 956 destroyers with 3M-80E Moskit supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles. The cost of the deal for the destroyers was approximately $800 million, the cost of 48 missiles was about $100 million. Under the second contract, in 2005–2006, two more destroyers of the improved Project 956EM were transferred to the Chinese Navy. At the same time, for these destroyers, China purchased four deck-based Ka-28 anti-submarine helicopters, and in 2009–2011, another nine Ka-28 helicopters and nine Ka-31 radar patrol helicopters.

In 1997–2001, 35 Tor-M1 anti-aircraft missile systems were delivered to China, and in 2002–2003, two S-300FM Rif-M shipborne air defense systems were delivered.

Since 2000, China began to supply Buk and Tunguska anti-aircraft missile systems, various guided missiles and aerial bombs, S-300 PMU1 anti-aircraft missile systems, T-80U tanks, etc.

In 2002, Rosoboronexport entered into a contract for the supply of eight Project 636 diesel-electric submarines (diesel-electric submarines) equipped with Club-S missile systems to the Chinese Navy (cost: about $1.5 billion). The last, eighth, diesel-electric submarine was delivered in 2006.

In addition, over the years, the Smerch multiple launch rocket system, Metis and Konkurs anti-tank missile systems and other weapons were supplied to the PRC.

In 2011, the Russian Military-Industrial Company sent 25 Tiger armored vehicle kits to China for assembly in that country, then China received another 25 Tigers and signed a contract for the supply of 10 more vehicles.

In 2011–2012, Rosoboronexport entered into a contract with the Chinese Ministry of Defense for the supply of more than 400 AL-31F/FN aircraft engines.

In 2013, Russia and China signed an agreement for the supply of four Lada-class submarines and agreed on China's purchase of heavy-duty 117C engines, the Il-76 military transport aircraft and the Il-78 refueling aircraft.

Currently, China has successfully launched the production of modern weapons systems, including space, naval, nuclear missile and other military equipment. Nevertheless, the Chinese military-industrial complex cannot do without Russian assistance. China has failed to overcome the gap with Russia and highly developed Western countries in the field of electronic systems, engine building, ship and aviation energy.

Considering that historically the PLA was armed with mostly Soviet-Russian-made equipment, then, based on the national interests of the PRC, it is more expedient to acquire the latest technologies and certain types of weapons of Russian rather than Western production, especially since Russia has the ability to have such technologies and weapons offer. In turn, for Russia it is significant that the Chinese side is quite solvent.

Today, China is interested in acquiring Su-33 carrier-based fighters for its aircraft carriers under construction, the latest Su-35 fighters, guided bombs, engines for aircraft, cruise missiles and submarines, high-precision electronics for guidance systems, hydroacoustic stations, radars and other equipment, where Chinese manufacturers lag behind Russian ones is noticeable.

In 2015, China signed a contract with Russia for the purchase of the S-400 anti-aircraft missile system. In the same year, Russia and China signed the largest aviation contract for the purchase of 24 Su-35 multirole fighters. The transaction amount is estimated at no less than $2 billion. The Chinese military thus became the first foreign customers of the S-400 air defense system and Su-35 fighter jets; before that, they were operated only by the Russian Aerospace Forces.

It should also be noted that there is emerging cooperation in Russian-Chinese military-technical cooperation. We are talking about the joint production of new heavy transport helicopters, wide-body aircraft, diesel-electric submarines from Russian parts with partial use of Chinese ones. In addition, Russian and Chinese specialists are conducting various research and development work in the field of creating new and modernizing old weapons.

Thus, China is currently interested in military-technical cooperation with Russia in the following areas:

– import of modern fighters, aircraft and ship engines, high-precision electronics;

– acquisition of licenses for production technologies of complex high-tech weapons and equipment;

– joint R&D;

– repair and modernization of previously supplied weapons, military and special equipment.

Military cooperation between China and the Russian Federation is developing in many areas, including the training of Chinese military specialists: Chinese military personnel are trained in Russian universities, crews of submarines and surface ships, as well as pilots and air defense crews, are trained in Russian training centers.

The exchange of military delegations is expanding, joint Russian-Chinese military exercises are held annually, and a mechanism for consultations on strategic security issues has been established.

The ongoing Russian-Chinese military exercises represent an example of a strategic partnership between Moscow and Beijing in order to neutralize US policy. Thanks to cooperation, Russia and China not only clearly demonstrate their unity in the confrontation with the United States, but also show the world a powerful force in this confrontation.

In general, military-technical and military cooperation strengthens mutual trust between the two countries and leads Russia and China to establish relationships on economic and political issues, as well as on global and regional security issues.

REASONS FOR THE MILITARY-POLITICAL CONNECTION OF RUSSIA AND CHINA

Russia and China are moving in the same direction today. Photo by Reuters

The “Pivot to Asia” strategy proclaimed by US President Barack Obama in 2011 is openly directed against China and Russia. US naval forces are being drawn into the Pacific basin, US military treaties with Japan, South Korea and Australia are being intensified, and new US military ties are being established with Vietnam, Singapore, the Philippines, and Malaysia.

At the Asian Security Conference held in Singapore in June 2013, the US Secretary of Defense announced Washington's intention to redeploy 60% of its naval and air force resources currently based outside its country to the Asia-Pacific region by 2020.

Currently, the United States, together with its allies, is creating obstacles to the development of China and Russia in the Asia-Pacific region, restraining the influence of Beijing and Moscow and strengthening its hegemony in it. US policy is aimed at inciting territorial disputes and other acute problems of the PRC and Russia in the Asia-Pacific region. In addition, the United States is attempting to prevent China and Russia from entering the Trans-Pacific Trade Partnership free trade zone they are hastily creating.

In these conditions, Russia and China are obliged to clearly define their positions in the interests of stabilizing the situation in the Asia-Pacific region.

Both countries do not accept the US policy of interference in the affairs of other states and the idea of ​​a unipolar world. Therefore, in order to counter US hegemony, Russia and China are forced to create their own powerful alliance.

Washington’s risky decisions at the beginning of the 21st century to start wars in the Middle East, which led to catastrophic consequences in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and destroyed stability throughout the world, contributed to the rapprochement between Russia and China.

RESIST THE “THREE FORCES OF EVIL”

Russia and China are united and brought together by the need to confront the “three forces of evil” – separatism, extremism and terrorism.

Russia and China take a tough position on issues of the territorial integrity of their countries and need mutual support from each other in defending their interests before the world community in eliminating pockets of separatism. For Russia, this is primarily the North Caucasus; for China, it is the problem of Taiwan, Tibet and Xinjiang.

Attempts by the West to organize color revolutions in Russia, as it happened in 2012 on Bolotnaya Square in Moscow, and in China, as it happened in 1989 in Tiananmen Square in Beijing and in 2014 in Hong Kong, are forcing both countries to look for ways to counter domestic extremism and export of “soft power” both independently and through joint efforts.

Russia emphasizes the importance of practical cooperation with China in the fight against radical Islam, especially in the area adjacent to the territory of the two countries - in Central Asia, since the possible strengthening of Islamic extremism in this region could hit both states.

China is concerned about the impact that radical Islam could have on its Muslim population. For example, about 1 million Kazakhs, 375 thousand Kyrgyz and many representatives of other Central Asian peoples live in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region.

Russia, in turn, is concerned that the growing influence of radical Islam will negatively impact the millions of Russians who remain in Central Asia and create difficult problems along its long border with the Muslim world.

Therefore, Moscow and Beijing cannot look with indifference at the penetration of radical Islam into this region from other Muslim countries, especially Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.

Cooperation in the fight against international terrorism is of great importance for Russia and China. In this regard, there is a deepening of cooperation within the framework of the Regional Anti-Terrorism Structure of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (RATS SCO) and giving a new impetus to strengthening the legal framework of the SCO RATS, saturating anti-terrorism interaction with new practical content, which ensures the successful resolution of security issues by Russia and China and reduces the risk of regional conflicts in the Asia-Pacific region.

A BAD DREAM FOR THE USA

The United States and its allies, pursuing a policy of containing Russia and China in the Asia-Pacific region, are themselves pushing the two neighboring countries towards each other.

“As the international situation becomes more complicated, intensifying contacts and coordination between China and Russia will become increasingly necessary, the head of the Chinese state emphasized,” reports the Chinese government news agency Xinhua.

In turn, the daily newspaper People's Daily, published by the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, openly writes that “the strategic rapprochement between China and Russia is becoming an anchor of global stability.”

The created Russian-Chinese axis, in contrast to the existing US-Japanese axis, is aimed at creating a multipolar world and ensuring a global strategic balance.

At the beginning of 2012, the Russian-language electronic version of the People's Daily newspaper published an article by Dai Xu, a researcher at the Chinese Center for Strategic Studies, entitled “China and Russia should create a Eurasian Alliance.” The article, in particular, says: “... the rapprochement of China and Russia is an inevitable result of US strategic pressure, as well as the choice that the parties made for the purpose of their own survival... China and Russia individually lag significantly behind the United States and only together have powerful force... The interaction between China and Russia will not only help promote the security and development of the two states, but also may attract the attention of other countries in Eurasia, including Iran and Pakistan, to disrupt US strategic plans in the region..."

Experts warn that “the involvement of the Russian and Chinese armies in the integration process turns this formation into a powerful bloc that will become even more powerful than NATO led by the United States... the mere addition of the Russian and Chinese military potentials can lead to discouraging results for Washington and its allies result - if the military integration of China and Russia comes true, it will be a serious counterbalance to the existing “all-consuming” NATO policy.”

The futility of opposing (at least military) such an alliance is understood in the West - and the “US nuclear war projects with Russia and China” voiced by American experts will remain only “virtual exercises” of American generals.

It is not for nothing that the leading ideologist of US foreign policy, Zbigniew Brzezinski, warned that “the unity of Eurasia is a bad dream for the United States.” In his opinion, the unification of political forces in Eurasia will lead to the fact that the United States will not be able to dominate the world.

MILITARY ALLIANCE OR STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP

“Despite large-scale cooperation in the military sphere, Russia and China do not plan to create a formal military alliance... The creation of a military organization like NATO would be contrary to the principles that guide Russia and China. The countries intend to develop cooperation in the military sphere, but not to form blocs,” points out Tian Chunsheng, an analyst at the Russian Research Center under the State Council of the People’s Republic of China.

It should be noted that back in 1982, the Chinese leadership formulated a policy of not entering into alliances with great powers, explaining that allied relations “could weaken the PRC’s will to resist the negative actions of its partner and attempts to use China to the detriment of its interests.” It was also pointed out that such an alliance would “prevent normal contacts with other countries of the world.”

The weakness of military alliances is that each country in the alliance has its own interests. Therefore, the creation of a military alliance leads to a large number of risks. The Union limits the diplomatic independence and freedom of its member countries, and China and Russia clearly do not intend to make these factors dependent on others.

In 2010, at the proposal of China, Russian-Chinese relations were characterized using a new formula - a comprehensive strategic partnership.

“We believe that in today’s rapidly changing environment, the strategic partnership that exists between China and Russia is most appropriate. They have absorbed historical lessons and experience and most optimally correspond to the law of development of relations between both countries and their internal political realities. This type of relationship is supported by both the power elite and the people of the PRC and the Russian Federation. All this contributes to long-term and stable ties between countries, says the report, prepared based on the results of research by the research center at Fudan University and the Russian International Affairs Council. – Strategic partnership relations have functional elasticity and have broad development opportunities. If Russia and China face important issues in the international arena, such relations could transform into closer ones – allied ones, without defining mutual long-term obligations.”

Thus, there is no need to conclude a Russian-Chinese military alliance, since the existing strategic partnership relations correspond to the level of bilateral relations, and their capabilities are sufficient to respond to emerging challenges and to meet the conditions of strategic interaction.”

At the same time, during the meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin in September 2014, the Chinese side expressed a desire to increase the level of strategic partnership with Russia, create new development opportunities through mutual exchange and jointly resist external challenges and threats. Sino-Russian cohesion is designed to resist external pressure and threats, maintain strategic balance and international stability.

JOINT SOLVING INTERNATIONAL PROBLEMS

China and Russia have common interests and adhere to similar positions on a wide range of international problems (multipolarity and polycentricity of the world, ways to resolve situations in a number of problematic countries and regions, etc.).

“Russia and China have created joint mechanisms for solving international problems and often come up with common global initiatives. The main multilateral regional platform is the SCO; its regional anti-terrorist structure has been operating since 2002. In the future, the BRICS association will be able to play a similar role, but at the global level,” says Oleg Timofeev, candidate of historical sciences.

In 2011, the Russian-Chinese tandem demonstrated unity when voting on a resolution on Syria at the UN.

China supported Russia’s actions in connection with the Euromaidan, the Ukrainian coup d’etat and other events in Ukraine. On November 21, 2014, the Chinese Foreign Ministry directly stated that China supports Russia’s approach to resolving the Ukrainian crisis. The acting director of the Department of Europe and Central Asia of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China, Gui Cunyu, told reporters about this. In addition, Gui Cunyu approved the reunification of Crimea with Russia. “We know well the history of Crimea,” said the Chinese representative.

In turn, Russia supports the principle of the territorial integrity of the PRC. After the People's Republic of China adopted the law “On Counteracting the Division of the Country” in March 2005, the Russian Foreign Ministry expressed an “understanding of the motives” for the adoption of this law. According to Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Alexander Yakovenko, “we believe that there is only one China in the world, of which Taiwan is an integral part.”

China has not distanced itself from Russia in solving the problem of the Syrian crisis. According to the Austrian newspaper Presse, in addition to Russian, Iranian and American weapons, Chinese weapons are also supplied to Syria. China also supplies weapons to Iran, which is an ally of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

China has blocked anti-Syrian resolutions in the UN Security Council four times. And on November 14, 2015, representatives of Chinese diplomacy joined the negotiations in Vienna on the Syrian settlement.

Currently, joint efforts of Russia and China are aimed at resolving the DPRK nuclear missile problem within the framework of the six-party negotiations.

In general, at the present stage, Russian-Chinese international relations are characterized by a wide range of areas of interaction, including intensive contacts at the highest level, cooperation in the UN Security Council, joint participation in international and regional organizations such as the SCO, APEC and BRICS.

A BASIC GUARANTEE FOR MAINTAINING PEACE ON THE PLANET

Currently, the achieved level of Russian-Chinese relations meets the modern needs of ensuring the national security of Russia and China.

On August 23, 2015, in an article for Rossiyskaya Gazeta, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov noted that Russian-Chinese relations “are the best in history and continue to develop progressively.”

“Russia and China need each other,” notes political scientist Timofey Bordachev. – For Moscow, Beijing is the largest international political partner in history, on which it can rely. And for China, Russia is a guarantee that no one will crush it in the political arena.”

In the future, Moscow and Beijing will be able to change the behavior model of any state if its actions pose a threat to the modern world.

At the same time, leaders in Beijing and Moscow have repeatedly stated that “Russian-Chinese rapprochement is not directed against third countries, including the United States, and this is true in the sense that the United States and the West are not considered by either China or Russia as an enemy . On the contrary, both sides are extremely interested in economic and political cooperation with the West. It is the most important factor in the development of both countries and, therefore, fully corresponds to their strategic goals.”

In conclusion, here is another quote from Dai Xu’s article in the People’s Daily: “The interaction between China and Russia has provided a basic guarantee for maintaining world peace in the 21st century.”