Historical science and political science, including their Orientalist fields, are now more politicized and ideologized than ever before. This fully applies to the assessment of such a world-historical (with a minus sign) event as the destruction of the Soviet Union. If we ignore the semitones, then there are two polar points of view. First, the fall of the Soviet power, and with it the entire Soviet bloc, was the inevitable end point of a dead-end development trend. Second, the destruction of the USSR was a crime against humanity, committed as a result of the thoughtlessness and connivance of some, and the evil and selfish intent of others. But from both points of view, it was the elimination of the Soviet Union that created a qualitatively new situation in the world.

The pre-existing balance of power was disrupted by a sharp and radical shift towards one pole, namely the United States of America. With the greatest economic and military potential in the world, this country does not have the appropriate political culture and ethical standards to use the power it has acquired with benefit or at least without prejudice to humanity. In its aggressive and selfish Messianic blindness, the United States has placed itself above international law and seriously intends to determine the course of human history alone.

The East will be the first to suffer from these changes. In the current conditions, the historically objective process of globalization in many of its manifestations is perceived here as a neo-imperialist invasion of the West, and more specifically of the United States. The internal contradiction inherent in globalization, in my opinion, is that it requires a certain limitation of national sovereignty. While Europe is to some extent already prepared for such self-restraint, the East still lives on largely negative memories of Western colonialism, and at the level of mass consciousness these memories are particularly sensitive to issues related to national independence. In addition, in the modern world order, the restriction of national sovereignty is not uniform for all states, but invariably turns in favor of the powerful West.

More broadly, it should be noted that the idea of national or State sovereignty has long been the basis of many political processes. It makes sense from the point of view of pure science to talk about the readiness or lack of readiness of a particular nation for independence, but in practical politics, the interests of political elites or the emotions of the masses usually prevail. There is a postulate in Marxism that prohibits confusing the right of nations to self-determination, up to the creation of a separate state, with the expediency of such separation, but who can give an impartial and disinterested conclusion about such expediency, and make the interested parties believe in themselves?

The increasingly popular idea of creating a world government with vast powers can turn into a global conflict in the "East-West" scenario. We are already seeing the first signs of a clash between the idea and practice of globalization, on the one hand, and the idea of national sovereignty, on the other. The consequences of this clash are, in particular, the strengthening of religious and ethnic particularism in a number of countries, which can lead to a setback in their political and social development.

notes

¹ Alaev L. B. " According to the latest intelligence data, we fought with ourselves "(On the question of the main contradiction of our era) / / Vostok (Oriens). 2002. N 4.

Permanent link to this publication: