Internal threats to Russia's security. Security of states in the Middle Ages Internal threats to the security of Russia

1. In the early stages of cultural development in the era of pre-religious consciousness and mythologization of the surrounding world, where myth, “as the reality in which they live” (B. Malinovsky), a person’s attitude to danger can be taken as a constant. Danger lurked everywhere. In this world, the very concept of “security” did not yet exist, in its simplest reading, as protection from danger. And only from the moment of the birth of the first civilizations, a culture based on religion not as a separate cult system, but as a measure of the life of society, did the attitude towards danger gradually change.

Thus, during the conquest of America, the Spanish conquistadors were surprised at the amazing contempt for death that existed among some peoples of the newly discovered continent - this would have been impossible in an era before religious consciousness. The peoples of European civilizations (Romans, Hellenes) and Middle Eastern civilizations (Assyrians, Persians) had a different attitude towards danger. The man of these civilizations realized why he neglected the danger or feared it; he consciously overcame the danger, that there was already the formation and further provision of his own security and, due to certain beliefs, the security of the country. Although before Democritus, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the term “security” did not exist in scientific language.

Growth in commodity production in European countries; lack of precious metals and the associated search for new lands, where they hoped to find gold, silver and gems, spices and ivory (in the tropics), valuable furs and walrus tusks (in northern countries); the search for new trade routes from Europe to India and East Asia, caused by the desire of Western European merchants to get rid of intermediaries and establish direct connections with Asian countries (Turkish conquests almost completely closed the road to the East through Asia Minor and Syria), are among the general reasons for equipping expeditions, one of the conditions of which was maintaining security.

And thanks to the successes of science and technology, with the development of shipbuilding (the creation of caravels), great geographical discoveries became possible, and the danger of navigation decreased. Naturally, security required knowledge, in particular geographical knowledge. Moreover, not only scientific, but also pre-scientific knowledge has always been correlated with geography, with knowledge about the surrounding world, about the earth. Ignorance already contains a hidden threat, a hidden danger. Having received initial geographical information about the surrounding world, a person embarked on the path of overcoming existing or possible danger, which entailed the development of general knowledge and practical skills. Knowledge gave birth to new knowledge, knowledge for knowledge. And with it - security for security. Their interrelation follows from the development itself.

Thus, from ancient times to the present day, there has been a consistency: discovery > new knowledge > security, which emphasizes the humanistic or educational aspect of security. Security is a dynamic, flexible, never constant concept, capable of self-development and self-realization.

Security as an inalienable natural human right

Ensuring national security- a set of political, economic, social, health, military and legal measures aimed at ensuring the normal functioning of the nation and eliminating possible threats.

Ensuring national security includes: the formation of an improved stable economic condition of a citizen in relation to other citizens living in the territory of a given state.

Protection of the state system;

Defense of the social order;

Ensuring territorial integrity and sovereignty;

Ensuring the political and economic independence of the nation;

Ensuring the health of the nation;

Public order protection;

Fighting crime.

Ensuring technological safety and protection from natural disasters.

Bodies ensuring national security are the army, intelligence and counterintelligence services, law enforcement agencies, and medical authorities.

Subjects and objects of security

The main objects of national security are established by law: the individual - his rights and freedoms; society - material and spiritual values; the state - its constitutional system, sovereignty and territorial integrity.

The main subject of ensuring national security is the state, which exercises functions in this area through the legislative, executive and judicial authorities.

The law determines the forces and means of ensuring security in the structure of law enforcement agencies, bodies ensuring the safe conduct of work in industry, energy, transport and agriculture; communications and information security services, customs, environmental authorities, public health authorities and other government security authorities operating on the basis of legislation.

The law also states that citizens, public and other organizations and associations, being subjects of security, have the rights and responsibilities to participate in ensuring security in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation, the legislation of the republics within the Russian Federation, regulations of state authorities and regional administrations , regions, autonomous regions and autonomous okrugs, adopted within the limits of their competence in this area.

We now consider man to be the main object and subject of national security - the most valuable, but also the most dangerous creature on Earth both for ourselves and for the environment. At the same time, a person is present in all types of security. Therefore, ensuring the security of the individual becomes a condition for ensuring the security of all its other types and levels. On the other hand, the position of the individual is determined by the state of society and the state.

Each person can only partially ensure personal security by acting within the law and without neglecting the interests of society and the state. Non-governmental organizations operating on a voluntary basis can provide, to some extent, the security of certain groups of the population. The main instrument for ensuring life safety is the state. This is not only his main task, but also his exclusive responsibility.

However, on the one hand, there are facts of insufficient responsibility of state bodies, in particular for the life and safety of citizens. On the other hand, a significant part of the Russian population does not know how, or rather does not want, to combine their personal interests with state interests. As a result, legal nihilism is growing, state principles are discredited in various spheres of social life, and it is forgotten that in addition to rights, a person also has responsibilities. In this regard, a serious threat to Russia's national security is the imbalance of interests of the state, society, various social groups and individuals.

The principles of ensuring national security are the guiding and most important ideas aimed at achieving national goals.

Security levels

The security subject area is determined by the following primary interests and goals:

Achieving political stability (controllability, maintaining order necessary for the normal functioning of all public and state institutions, protecting constitutional legality, rights and freedoms of citizens);

Ensuring the integrity of the state (its structure and political regime that exclude the threat of collapse under the influence of internal contradictions);

Defense (protection of the independence and territorial integrity of the country from armed aggression from the outside);

Techno-ecological safety (prevention of man-made disasters, overcoming the consequences of natural disasters);

Economic security (ensuring the economic independence of the country as a condition for the survival and development of the people);

Selection of foreign policy priorities (contributing to the creation of the most favorable international environment for Russia).

These goals can be distributed across levels, which are determined in accordance with the general principle of the relationship between the individual, society and the state.

On a personal level it is:

Reliable protection of personal and property safety;

Ensuring a scientifically based and state-guaranteed minimum of material and environmental conditions of existence with a tendency to improve them;

Real provision of constitutional rights and freedoms of the individual.

At the civil society level:

Overcoming confrontation in society, achieving and maintaining national consensus on vital issues of political, economic, social, ethno-national development of the country;

Finding a way out of the demographic and environmental crisis and ensuring public health;

Acceleration of the processes of formation of institutions of self-organization of civil society;

Increasing the creative activity of the population;

Overcoming the economic crisis and ensuring progressive economic development on the basis of a market economy;

Formation of a political and legal culture of the population corresponding to the principles of civil society;

Ensuring the interests and rights of Russian citizens living in foreign countries recognized by international law;

Providing economic, social, political, information conditions for the comprehensive development of the individual.

At the state level:

Steadily ensuring the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia;

Ensuring the socio-political and economic stability of the country;

Protection and provision of legal rights, freedoms and interests of citizens;

Improving the federal state structure: increasing the effectiveness of protecting the constitutional order, law and order, and the fight against organized crime and corruption;

Development of an effective system of international relations based on partnership and cooperation;

Creation of a reliable defense potential capable of repelling any external aggression;

Development of comprehensive mutually beneficial relations with the CIS countries, participation in the development of integration processes between them on a mutual basis.

Security threats (external and internal)

The main external threats to national security are:

1. Reducing the role of Russia in the world economy due to targeted actions of individual states and interstate associations, for example the UN, OSCE;

2. Reduced economic and political influence on processes occurring in the global economy;

3. Increasing the scale and influence of international military and political associations, including NATO;

4. Emerging trends towards the deployment of military forces of foreign states near the borders of Russia;

5. The widespread proliferation of weapons of mass destruction in the world;

6. Weakening of the processes of integration (cohesion, unification) and the establishment of economic ties between Russia and the CIS countries;

7. Creating conditions for the formation and emergence of military armed conflicts near the state borders of Russia and the CIS countries;

8. Territorial expansion in relation to Russia, for example, from Japan and China;

10. Weakening of Russia’s position in the field of information and telecommunications. This is manifested in a decrease in Russia’s influence on international information flows and the development by a number of states of information expansion technologies that can be applied to Russia;

11. Intensification of the activities of foreign organizations engaged in reconnaissance and collection of strategic information on Russian territory;

12. A sharp decline in the country’s military and defense potential, which does not allow it, if necessary, to repel a military attack, which is associated with a systemic crisis in the country’s defense complex.

Ensuring national security at a sufficient level necessitates constant monitoring of external and internal threats, and therefore their list is constantly changing depending on specific political, social, legal and economic conditions.

Internal threats to Russia's security

For centuries, the national security of Russia, and then the USSR, was ensured, first of all, by military power and a strict state ideology.

The time of perestroika and the beginning of market reforms gave rise to unfounded hopes in society for an easy solution to national security problems. The specifics of Russia's position in the geopolitical space were not realized in time, and a modern concept of its security was not developed. Hence the protracted understanding of Russia's actual national interests and the delay in identifying priorities and factors of national security. Development of Russia in the 90s. The last century has shown that the problem of ensuring Russia's security remains relevant and is getting worse.

Thus, its economic aspect is to a certain extent weakened by the ambiguous consequences of socio-economic reforms. During the process of economic liberalization, the country's borders remained open for a long time to the smuggling of domestic valuables, weapons, drugs and even rocket materials. The ground arose for the development of separatism. At the same time, many countries began to expand into our country.

Claimants for large areas of the territory appeared; Cinemas and television programs began to be filled with products alien to the Russian mentality. Due to the destruction of production and technological potential, the real danger of the country's technological dependence began to increase. The reality is that it is more profitable for influential forces in a number of developed countries to have Russia as a raw material appendage than as a strong competitor in science and technology.

One of the most important problems facing Russia today is the lack of a deeply thought-out concept of national security that covers all the main aspects of public life. At the same time, it should be noted that certain steps in this direction have already been taken by the legislative and executive authorities, as well as by the scientific community of our country.

Assessing some of Russia's internal security problems, it should be recognized that the country's national security is by no means ensured at the proper level in all respects. Thus, with the formation of the CIS, Russia lost a number of its ancestral lands, sea ports, and strategic facilities.

The Russian army is going through a very difficult period of qualitative reform, faced with the need to switch to new types of weapons in the context of a budget deficit and the difficult social situation of privates and officers.

The domestic military-industrial complex is also in a difficult state, since state and even foreign orders do not use all its available capacities, and conversion cannot be carried out systematically and effectively due to a shortage of financial resources.

Domestic science is in a difficult situation: in the 90s. About 300 thousand specialists left the country. Such a “brain drain” means annual damage to the country in the amount of 60-70 billion US dollars.

The criminalization of Russian society has reached truly alarming proportions. The criminal world today numbers tens of thousands of armed people in its ranks. By uniting, they are able to solve not only local problems, but also influence the formation of state policy. According to criminologists, 10-20 million crimes are committed annually in Russia. Population surveys show that fear of crime is put in first place by respondents, sometimes ahead of traditional fears of rising prices and impoverishment.

Personal security suffers damage, first of all, from violent attacks.

According to criminological experts, not only the quantity, but also the “quality” of murders and their social danger have changed. The leading motivation is selfish, which in the recent past did not exceed 3-8% of the motivations for intentional murders. Simultaneously with the emergence of the layer of “new Russians”, new types of mercenary murders appeared, the so-called “contract” murders, committed on the basis of the purchase and sale or rental of real estate.

Political and nationalist murders began to compete with selfish attacks on life. Terrorist acts are being committed again, gradually turning into everyday phenomena of our lives: terrorism, hostage-taking, kidnappings, massacres in interregional military conflicts - the sad signs of today. Murders and violence committed by Chechen and international terrorists on the territory of Chechnya and the rest of Russia are still awaiting their criminal legal classification.

A characteristic feature of recent murders and violence is the use of military equipment, often weapons of mass destruction. Since the end of the Great Patriotic War, there has not been such a high level of weapons and explosive devices among criminal groups. In the hands of criminals are the latest designs, which, according to the laws of the criminal market, are sold and bought everywhere in the territory of the former USSR and beyond.

The economic security of the individual, society and state suffers colossal damage from selfish crime. The latter reached a level of 70-75% of the share of all crime, although in the recent past it did not exceed 50%. Its scale amounts to billions and trillions of rubles.

Structural indicators of acquisitive property crime also take new forms. The theft of state and public property is carried out today through privatization, “artificial bankruptcies,” financial, foreign economic, and raw materials transactions.

Drug addiction has reached the scale of a national disaster. Thus, according to rough estimates, income from shadow business amounts to 50-60 billion rubles. per year. As a result, more than 3 million Russians are involved in drug use for non-medical purposes, which is a serious threat to the gene pool and the very future of the country.

Theft and smuggling of strategic materials, including nuclear ones, are becoming noticeable in foreign economic crime. A previously unknown crime in the form of “laundering” of money and valuables has become widespread.

State security is undermined by the internationalization of crime, its corruption and politicization, as well as the criminalization of politics. Scandalous contract killings (for example, the murder of Magadan governor V. Tsvetkov, which occurred recently in Moscow), scandals surrounding regional elections are clear evidence of this.

The internationalization of crime occurs in the form of an increase in crimes of an international nature and the transnational association of organized crime.

Crimes affecting the interests of two or more states are most often associated with drug trafficking, smuggling, illegal border crossing, aircraft hijacking, mercenary activities, piracy, and poaching. The fight against them requires large-scale cooperation between security agencies and law enforcement agencies of various countries.

The state of the domestic economy, the imperfection of the system of organization of state power and civil society, the socio-political polarization of Russian society and the criminalization of public relations, the growth of organized crime and the increase in the scale of terrorism, the aggravation of interethnic and complicated international relations create a wide range of internal and external threats to the national security of the country.

In the economic sphere, the threats are complex in nature and are caused primarily by a significant reduction in gross domestic product, a decrease in investment, innovation activity and scientific and technical potential, stagnation of the agricultural sector, imbalance of the banking system, growth of external and internal public debt, and a tendency for fuel to dominate in export supplies. - raw materials and energy components, and in import supplies - food and consumer goods, including essential items.

The weakening of the country's scientific, technical and technological potential, the reduction of research in strategically important areas of scientific and technological development, the outflow of specialists and intellectual property abroad threaten Russia with the loss of its leading positions in the world, the degradation of high-tech industries, increased external technological dependence and the undermining of Russia's defense capability.

Negative processes in the economy underlie the separatist aspirations of a number of constituent entities of the Russian Federation. This leads to increased political instability, weakening of the single economic space of Russia and its most important components - production, technological and transport links, financial, banking, credit and tax systems.

Economic disintegration, social differentiation of society, devaluation of spiritual values contribute to increased tension in relations between the regions and the center, posing a threat to the federal structure and socio-economic structure of the Russian Federation.

The country's unified legal space is being eroded due to non-compliance with the principle of priority of the norms of the Constitution of the Russian Federation over other legal norms, federal legal norms over the norms of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation, and insufficient coordination of public administration at various levels.

The threat of criminalization of social relations emerging in the process of reforming the socio-political structure and economic activity is becoming particularly acute. Serious miscalculations made at the initial stage of reforms in the economic, military, law enforcement and other areas of state activity, the weakening of the system of state regulation and control, the imperfection of the legal framework and the lack of a strong state policy in the social sphere, the decline in the spiritual and moral potential of society are the main factors contributing to the growth of crime, especially its organized forms, as well as corruption

The collapse of the bipolar world and its reflection on the global security structure.

After the collapse of the bipolar world and the end of the Cold War (in November 1990, both superpowers signed the Charter of Paris, followed by the collapse of the “people's democracies”), the geopolitical structure of the world is emerging, which is a reflection of a different system of international security.

A characteristic feature of the modern international security system is the confrontation between two trends:

1) fragmentation and regionalization of international security, resulting in tension and rivalry;

2) the desire for global strategic interconnectedness.

The presence of the first trend is indicated by the following facts:

1. After the collapse of the bipolar world system, the international security system decentralized, the consequence of which was the fragmentation of the world into relatively independent regional security complexes.

2. The United States remains the world's only military superpower, whose geopolitical ambitions are difficult to resist. US military campaigns in Afghanistan and Iran do not provide the minimum necessary guarantees of security and stability.

3. After the end of the Cold War, great powers (except the United States), when solving security problems, are primarily guided by regional interests.

4. Regional and global rivalry between major powers has increased.

As C. Kaphen notes: “The resumption of rivalry and conflicts between the world's major powers is, without a doubt, predetermined. And most of all, America will contribute to this if it begins to propagate its views on terrorism, relying on the fact that comprehensive peace continues. Instead, America should realize that the excellence and stability that nurtured it are already beginning to slip away. Europe is in the midst of a revolutionary process of political and economic integration that is gradually eliminating the importance of external borders and leading to the concentration of power in Brussels.

The overall prosperity of the European Union will soon rival that of the United States. Russia will eventually rise and perhaps take its place in an integrated Europe. Asia is not far behind. China already represents the entire region and its economy is growing rapidly. And Japan, with the world's second-largest economy, is emerging from economic decline and gradually expanding its political and military influence."

5. After the collapse of the bipolar system of the world, the number of conflicts and local wars increased (the outbreak of national conflicts and the growth of tension in Europe and the Balkans, the Middle East, on the border between India and Pakistan, in South Asia, in Africa), since the mechanisms disappeared holding them back during the Cold War. In the era of the bipolar world, most local conflicts were not resolved, their negative potential accumulated, and when the “supervision” in the form of the opposing USA and the USSR disappeared, the conflicts were revealed threateningly.

The processes of fragmentation and regionalization are countered by powerful centripetal forces that intensify the desire for global strategic interconnectedness.

In the history of the Byzantine Empire, the period of the X-XII centuries. marked by a restructuring of the structure of public administration, aimed at eliminating disagreements in the activities of government institutions, their subsequent centralization and clear distribution of functions, as well as the creation of an extensive system of departments (secrets) and, as a result, strengthening the position of the basileus - “the ruler of the Christian ecumene.”

Emperor Leo VI the Wise (886–912) followed the path of reforming outdated mechanisms of power. He unified the titles, ranks and ranks that existed at that time, created a hierarchical model of positions and thereby marked the beginning of serious transformations in the field of public administration; his policies were continued by his descendants - representatives of the Macedonian dynasty (867-1056).

The emperor, who headed the political hierarchy and concentrated in his hands all the levers of influence on the bureaucracy, determined the composition and nature of the activities of administrative bodies. The bureaucratic apparatus depended on the will of the basileus, who paid employees salaries and provided them with a number of privileges. Institutions with fiscal, judicial and military functions, responsible for controlling taxation and replenishing the treasury, maintaining international contacts and military support, in practice asserted the strong centralized power of the emperor. The council of the highest nobility (synclit) had no real power: only in conditions of a political crisis could the noblest people of the empire, allies of the basileus, defend the interests of the overlord and the ruling dynasty. Members of the curia - bedchambers and eunuchs - had special “hidden” functions; Lacking effective ways to influence the politics of Byzantium, they, being in the inner circle of the emperor, could gradually direct the will of the basileus in the direction they needed. Over time, the sleepers (parakimonen), who installed their proteges in the management system and claimed certain powers, became a decentralizing force.

The sovereign not only determined the strategy for the development of the Roman power and palace policy, but also directed the activities of the synclite and controlled the system of imperial administration, which was actually closed on the figure of the basileus. Nevertheless, in order to preserve power for his descendants, he was forced to introduce the institution of “co-government,” which increased the heir’s chances of overcoming the resistance of the dignitaries and legitimately obtaining the throne.

Even after the creation of a unified management structure that connected the basileus, the heads of the capital departments (logophetes), local officials, the military and other members of the political hierarchy, by the 11th–12th centuries. Corruption was still widespread in Byzantium. The practice of purchasing positions was very popular.

The well-established work of departments and institutions of state power did not stop the gradual decline of the fem structure, in which the strategist who headed it was replaced by a praetor with powers in the field of civil proceedings; The highest military jurisdiction was concentrated in the hands of the head of the mercenary detachment - the tagma. The largest border military districts (cathepanates), which were of particular interest to the basileus, came under the control of governors, who over time established private hereditary estates in these territories. The role of military settlers (akrites), who were a noticeable force defending the borders of the Byzantine Empire, intensified.

Having received significant land, honorary government positions that increased influence, having acquired privileges and new prerogatives, the Byzantine aristocracy entered into the struggle for the throne with renewed vigor. From 1055 to 1071 there were four emperors on the throne; the country was torn apart by constant uprisings organized by the nobility. The struggle between civilian and military forces for political dominance determined the nature of the development of the empire, which was beset by constant rebellions. Only Alexius I Komnenos (c. 1057–1118) managed, relying on the support of relatives as well as the provincial military nobility, to break the powerful opposition of the magnates and deprive the capital's nobles of their former influence. With the victory of the rebel commander over Nikephoros Botaniates, the assertion of the superiority of the “militarized party” and the coming to power of the new Komnenos dynasty, temporary peace came to Byzantium.

EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL THREATS

During the 9th–11th centuries. The empire's successes in the field of foreign policy alternated with diplomatic failures and military defeats. Thanks to the active course of Vasily II the Bulgarian-Slayers (958-1025), the Roman power significantly expanded its borders. Byzantium managed to recapture Crete, Cyprus and part of Asia Minor from the weakened Arab Caliphate, as a result of a grueling long war, capture Bulgaria, force the Serbs and Croats to recognize the supreme supremacy of the basileus and annex some Caucasian regions (with the establishment of a protectorate in Armenia and Georgia). However, in the second half of the 11th–12th centuries. the empire faced a new powerful enemy, the Seljuk Turks, and suffered a number of defeats from them: in 1071, at the Battle of Manzikert, Sultan Alp Arslan defeated the Greek troops, captured Roman IV Diogenes (1068–1071) and included Armenia and Asia Minor in their possessions; in 1176, at Myriokephalos, Seljuk troops again inflicted a decisive defeat on the army of the basileus. Alexey I Komnenos, with the help of the knights of the First Crusade, managed to push the Seljuks into the interior of Asia Minor, thereby temporarily ensuring the security of the borders.

Part of the territories belonging to the Romans was seized by the Normans: thanks to a successful military campaign, Duke Robert managed to conquer southern Italy in 1071. The Pechenegs threatened Byzantium from the north: the defeat of Alexius I Komnenos in the Battle of Dorostol (1088) significantly worsened the position of the empire. The Pechenegs managed not only to seize part of the lands (Philippopolis), but also with their aggressive offensive to attract both external (Emir Chakha) and internal (Bogomils) enemies of the Roman power. By the beginning of the 90s of the 11th century. The instability in the country, caused by increasing pressure from the enemy, was so deep that Alexei I Komnenos had no choice but to turn to the Western European nobility and the Polovtsians for help. Thanks to a successful strategy, the emperor managed on April 29, 1091, at the Battle of Enos, to defeat the hordes of Pechenegs, push them away from the borders of Byzantium, and at the same time (through cunning diplomatic manipulations) neutralize the claims of Emir Chakh. The consistency of Alexios I Komnenos in protecting the empire and preserving its territorial unity bore fruit: he managed to return a significant part of the Byzantine possessions in Anatolia.

The coming to power of the Komnenos dynasty temporarily stopped a series of foreign policy failures: the Romans conquered lands previously captured by the Seljuks; conducted successful military operations aimed at weakening the Normans - a diplomatic victory was the Treaty of Devol signed in 1108 by Alexius I Comnenos and Bohemond of Tarentum. This helped distance the prospect of fragmentation. The Byzantine emperors, hoping to preserve the territorial integrity of the state in any way available to them, relied on concluding military and dynastic alliances with European monarchs. However, such tactics, with rare exceptions, did not bring real results.

In the period from 1974 to the present, there have been no attempts at an unconstitutional change of power or coups d'etat in Germany. There are no illegal separatist or anti-government movements. There are also no legal secessionist movements that could pose a noticeable political danger. Bavaria traditionally demonstrates a certain tendency towards isolation. In the era before the Roman conquest, the autochthons of Bavaria were the Celts, and Celtic influence continued into later times. In modern Germany, the Bavarian Party is distinguished by secessionist views. Within Bavaria itself, the Franken region claims the status of a separate state.

In 2005, the Lusatian Serbs, a Slavic minority living in the states of Saxony and Brandenburg, formed their own party. The goals of the Brandenburg Sorbs are the preservation of the Serbian Sorbian language and culture and the defense of national identity. The Union of Voters of Southern Schleswig, which represents the interests of the Danish and Frisian minorities in Germany (in the territories lost by Denmark in 1864 and not returned following the results of the 1920 referendum), does not raise questions about secession and annexation to Denmark. The attempt by the Danish minority in Southern Schleswig to achieve return to the Danish Kingdom after World War II did not receive the approval of the Danish population and authorities.

A serious threat to national security is terrorism. The level of terrorist threat remains high. According to the Minister of the Interior of Bavaria, a terrorist network organized by Islamic radicals with up to 5 thousand members operates in Germany. It is known that some of the terrorists who prepared the terrorist attack on September 11, 2001, stayed in Hamburg for a long time.

The government of A. Merkel put forward a whole package of measures aimed at reducing the terrorist threat, but left-wing parties refused to support it, citing the significant restrictions it contained on the rights and freedoms of citizens. In particular, it was proposed to introduce mechanisms for tracking Internet users and other methods of government control over the dissemination of information.

During the arrests (2007) of members of the German cell of the Jihad Union in the Bavarian Neu-Ulm, it turned out that most of the terrorists who planned to blow up the airport in Frankfurt am Main and the US military base Ramstein were German citizens. Land law enforcement agencies said that there is a new type of terrorism that has arisen on German soil.

The Kurdish group Anwar al-Islam recruits new members in Germany and then transports suicide bombers to Iraq. Although Anwar al-Islam does not carry out terrorist attacks on German territory, the very existence of such associations is a serious threat to national security.

In addition to Islamists, right-wing radical groups have also become more active since the late 1980s, and their arsenal continues to include methods of terrorism. Insufficient regulation of migration flows and high unemployment rates create a social basis for the promotion of far-right ideology.

Radical left groups have decreased their activity due to the wide representation of parties on the left political spectrum in political life. Most of the actions of the radical left are timed to coincide with international events, such as, for example, the G8 summit.

According to expert estimates, the level of corruption in Germany is low. Government decision-making and the functioning of the state apparatus are open, and various interest groups influence the government through legal mechanisms, and not through shadow lobbying “without rules.” Nevertheless, in Germany, scandals related to the concealment by political parties of the real amount of donations for their political activities periodically become public.

The 2007 Global Corruption Barometer study, prepared by the international non-governmental organization Transparency International, shows which areas of public life in the country, according to citizens, are most susceptible to corruption. In Germany, the population considers political parties and private businesses to be the most corrupt (3.5 points on a 5-point scale, where 5 is the maximum indicator of corruption); Media, public services (3.1); legislative bodies (3.0); NGOs, health care system (2.8). Citizens consider registering and licensing authorities to be the least corrupt (2.0 points); education system (2.2); law enforcement and tax authorities (2.3); armed forces (2.4).

Germany faces the threat of population decline: according to the UNDP Human Development Report 2007/2008, negative annual population growth is projected to be 0.1% between 2005 and 2015.

Population loss is compensated by immigration. The government does not consider immigration figures alarming or high, but the difficult situation in the labor market and problems associated with the assimilation of migrants are forcing Merkel's government to take measures to limit immigration. Germany encourages the immigration of highly qualified specialists.

From 1989 to 2003, about 2.2 million ethnic Germans came to the country from the territory of the former USSR, as well as from Poland (570 thousand) and Romania (220 thousand). The German government tried to regulate this process by setting quotas for the entry of ethnic Germans. From 1993 to 1999, the quota was 225 thousand people, in 1999 it was reduced to 100 thousand, in 2002 - to 91 thousand, and in 2003 - to 73 thousand. At the same time, there is a serious problem of socialization of ethnic Germans, since in 2003 only 20% of them spoke German.

In the second half of the 1950s, Germany needed an influx of additional labor to develop the economy. It was during this period that bilateral treaties were signed with Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Yugoslavia and Turkey. Their essence was that citizens of these countries could come to Germany as guest workers for a certain period of time (usually a year or two years).

Since the early 1960s, the percentage of foreigners permanently residing in the country began to gradually increase. In the mid-1970s, Germany no longer experienced a labor shortage as economic growth slowed, but by this time many visiting workers had received residence permits and moved their families to Germany. Children of immigrants born in Germany did not automatically receive German citizenship until 2001 and were also considered foreigners (for comparison, in 2001 the number of children receiving German citizenship was 37,000).

In the late 1980s and early 1990s, many citizens of Eastern European countries sought asylum in Germany. And if in 1989-1990 the official policy of the German government was to agree to the influx of immigrants into the country, then already in 1993 the CDU/CSU-FDP coalition, which was in power at that time, called reducing the number of immigrants one of its main tasks. In 1993, a new law was passed restricting the entry of immigrants. In 2001, a government commission prepared a report that declared a new approach to immigration policy, but the law on this matter was ratified by the Bundestag only in 2004 and came into force on January 1, 2005. In fact, it is also rather restrictive and is intended to regulate the flow of incoming foreigners in the direction of reducing it.

The practice of granting temporary work permits continues at the beginning of the 21st century. Although countries such as Poland and the Czech Republic have been members of the EU since 2004, similar restrictions still apply to their citizens. This is due to the fears of the states of “old Europe”, including Germany, that cheap labor from Eastern European countries will undermine the labor market in Western European countries.

Kurdish migrants began to move en masse to Germany in the second half of the 20th century. Many children of the first wave of immigrants are almost completely integrated into German society. In 1973, due to changes in world labor markets, Germany closed its labor recruitment centers in Turkey. Despite this, the expected decrease in the number of immigrants did not occur: to move, the Kurds began to use the principle of granting political asylum enshrined in German law. As a result of government measures to control migration flows, illegal migration rates have increased significantly. In the early 1990s, an ethnic conflict between Turks and Kurds arose in Germany. Bloody street clashes between gangs attracted the attention of law enforcement agencies, according to which there were about 7 thousand radical activists of Kurdish and Turkish nationalist groups in the country. In 1993, the Kurdistan Workers' Party, which carried out a series of terrorist attacks, was banned. After the arrest of its leader Abdullah Ocalan, a new series of terrorist attacks occurred. The most difficult situation was in Berlin.

Today, Turks and Kurds are the largest ethnic minority (730 thousand people). The policy of multiculturalism that the German authorities pursued in the 1990s partially smoothed out the contradictions associated with the integration of migrants from Asia Minor (overcoming the language barrier, training programs for different ages). The Turkish community overwhelmingly supports the SPD, which advocates expanding the social package for migrants.

One of the main “non-traditional” security threats is the activity in Germany of transnational criminal communities specializing in drug trafficking and arms trafficking. Illegal arms supply channels from Eastern Europe are controlled by both German citizens and immigrants from the CIS countries.

In total, 6.3 million offenses were registered in 2007. Despite a slight downward trend in this indicator (by 1.4%), crime continues to remain a serious threat.

The structure of crime includes such segments as crime of ethnic mafias, transnational crime, and economic crime. These three types of crime, along with terrorism, pose the greatest danger to society. The crime detection rate was 55.4% in 2007 (the highest since the reunification of the country). The increase in child and teenage crime, especially in the eastern regions and Bavaria, also raises certain concerns among law enforcement agencies.

During the 9th-11th centuries. The empire's successes in the field of foreign policy alternated with diplomatic failures and military defeats. Thanks to the active course of Vasily II the Bulgarian-Slayers (958-1025), the Roman power significantly expanded its borders.

Byzantium managed to recapture Crete, Cyprus and part of Asia Minor from the weakened Arab Caliphate, as a result of a grueling long war, capture Bulgaria, force the Serbs and Croats to recognize the supreme supremacy of the basileus and annex some Caucasian regions (with the establishment of a protectorate in Armenia and Georgia). However, in the second half of the XI-XII centuries. the empire faced a new powerful enemy, the Seljuk Turks, and suffered a number of defeats from them: in 1071, at the Battle of Manzikert, Sultan Alp Arslan defeated the Greek troops, captured Roman IV Diogenes (1068-1071) and included Armenia and Asia Minor in their possessions; in 1176, at Myriokephalos, Seljuk troops again inflicted a decisive defeat on the army of the basileus. Alexey I Komnenos, with the help of the knights of the First Crusade, managed to push the Seljuks into the interior of Asia Minor, thereby temporarily ensuring the security of the borders. Part of the territories belonging to the Romans was seized by the Normans: thanks to a successful military campaign, Duke Robert managed to conquer southern Italy in 1071. The Pechenegs threatened Byzantium from the north: the defeat of Alexius I Komnenos in the Battle of Dorostol (1088) significantly worsened the position of the empire. The Pechenegs managed not only to seize part of the lands (Philippopolis), but also with their aggressive offensive to attract both external (Emir Chakha) and internal (Bogomils) enemies of the Roman power. By the beginning of the 90s of the 11th century. The instability in the country, caused by increasing pressure from the enemy, was so deep that Alexei I Komnenos had no choice but to turn to the Western European nobility and the Polovtsians for help. Thanks to a successful strategy, the emperor managed on April 29, 1091, at the Battle of Enos, to defeat the hordes of Pechenegs, push them away from the borders of Byzantium, and at the same time (through cunning diplomatic manipulations) neutralize the claims of Emir Chakh. The consistency of Alexios I Komnenos in protecting the empire and preserving its territorial unity bore fruit: he managed to return a significant part of the Byzantine possessions in Anatolia. The coming to power of the Komnenos dynasty temporarily stopped a series of foreign policy failures: the Romans conquered lands previously captured by the Seljuks; conducted successful military operations aimed at weakening the Normans - a diplomatic victory was the Treaty of Devol signed in 1108 by Alexius I Comnenos and Bohemond of Tarentum. This helped distance the prospect of fragmentation. The Byzantine emperors, hoping to preserve the territorial integrity of the state in any way available to them, relied on concluding military and dynastic alliances with European monarchs. However, such tactics, with rare exceptions, did not bring real results.

An important direction of Byzantine foreign policy was the maintenance of diplomatic relations with the Old Russian state, which later resulted in strong allied ties. During the 9th-11th centuries. The Russians constantly carried out armed raids on the empire. In accordance with some of the treaties concluded as a result of military campaigns (especially 907/911), they were granted significant privileges (the ability to conduct duty-free trade); part of the Rus' military elite was accepted into the Byzantine army in the form of a hired force. The treaty of 987 is of exceptional importance in the history of Russian-Byzantine relations: the Kiev prince Vladimir Svyatoslavovich, having agreed to support Vasily II in his fight against the opposition (Varda Foka), demanded the hand of the basileus' sister Anna as a reward; The Greek side, as one of the conditions for fulfilling the contract, obliged Vladimir to convert to Christianity (see p. 382). Along with the need to overcome the opposition of the Byzantine nobility and eliminate the external threat posed by the Seljuk Turks, Normans and Pechenegs, the emperors had to face a series of heretical movements. The Bogomils, who first appeared in Bulgaria and annoyed the official authorities, exposed the depravity of the clergy, as well as bribery of local officials. They pointed out the flawed nature of the entire management system, which was focused exclusively on satisfying the interests of the country's richest people. The teaching of the Bogomils, which received widespread support from the peasants, part of the urban population and the military, was in many ways akin to the ideas of the Paulicians who took refuge from persecution in Macedonia and Thrace, and had many followers in Armenia. Mass popular and heretical uprisings, often reflecting more the interests of the aristocracy than the plebs, continually threatened the integrity of the empire: in 1040, Bulgaria was shocked by the uprising of Peter Delyan, in 1042, dissatisfied with the arbitrariness of officials managed to seize the palace of the basileus, overthrow and blind Michael V Calafat , in 1078, near Mesemvria, a revolt of the Bogomils broke out under the leadership of Dobromir, in 1078-1079. The Paulician revolt broke out, finally, in 1147. Corfu experienced large-scale protests against the authorities. Several times uprisings of the Bogomils and Paulicians broke out in Philippopolis; after the first military failure of the heretics, they again gathered their strength, advanced in 1084 against Alexei I Komnenos and, thanks to the concluded alliance with the Pechenegs, as well as the skillful leadership of the commander Travl, inflicted a crushing defeat on the Byzantine army. Later, the basileus nevertheless broke the resistance of the rebels. Along with the pacification of the “secular” rebels, the imperial government sought to eradicate all religious dissent - heresy not only harmed Christian foundations, but also threatened the social and political stability of the state, arousing in representatives of the lower strata of society the desire to overthrow the existing system. Basileus, who considered himself the protector of the Orthodox Church (the “community of the faithful”), instructing people in the faith and guiding souls to salvation, saw in it a political ally who played an important role on the diplomatic scene. The schism between the Orthodox and Catholic Churches that occurred in 1054 had profound consequences for Byzantium. The clash between the Patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cyrularius, who initiated the closure of a number of monasteries adhering to the Latin liturgical practice in Southern Italy, and the Roman Pontiff Leo IX contributed to an increase in differences (primarily dogmatic) between the churches and their further isolation from each other. The ensuing controversy between the Byzantine hierarchs and the papal legate Humbert led to mutual accusations and subsequent excommunication. Having anathematized each other on July 16, 1054, representatives of the churches were only able to come to a temporary agreement a few years later. Nevertheless, the schism was not overcome, and its influence is clearly visible on the nature of the crusader movement. The constant threat from enemies (Seljuks, Normans and nomads), internal strife that led to the destabilization of the administrative apparatus, and an underdeveloped army forced the basileus to look for allies. The Pecheneg raids on the Byzantine Empire dictated to Alexei I Komnenos the need to negotiate with Western European knights (1095), who could defend the borders of the Roman power with the force of their weapons. It has already been said that initially, thanks to the participation of the crusaders, the Byzantines managed to conquer significant territories in Asia Minor (including Smyrna and Ephesus) from the Seljuk Turks and significantly strengthened themselves in this region. However, gradually the role of the “Latin army” ceased to be exclusively allied: the number of small skirmishes and large-scale clashes between the population and the crusaders increased. The Venetian and Genoese merchants who penetrated into large cities, increasingly established themselves in the life of Byzantine society, ruined, as already mentioned, local producers and gradually replaced Greek craft and trading corporations, which had previously been the main suppliers of goods for the aristocracy, with Italian companies.

At the beginning of the month, the Global Challenges Foundation published its first report on the most serious threats that human civilization may face in the future. It includes both existing and potential threats today. Researchers want humanity to think and do something to improve the situation, since there is still time to find possible ways to solve problems.

Many of the threats mentioned on our list are the result of technological and life circumstances, while others have existed since the formation of our planet and the emergence of humanity.

Scientists have long warned that many species of animals and plants are disappearing. Our way of life and the way of life of animals depend on a complex ecosystem, and if species begin to disappear, then this becomes a catalyst for irreversible processes that will negatively affect us in the future and already in the present. Even environmental disasters limited to a territory have planetary consequences.

We are talking about the collapse of the global economic and political systems as a result of making wrong decisions in these areas, the depletion of the Earth's resource base and military conflicts. If something like this happens in one corner of the Earth, the consequences will affect the rest of the planet. Researchers claim the threat of totalitarianism, which could become a real threat today.

In the history of mankind, there have been large-scale volcanic eruptions that have caused environmental and man-made disasters. The eruption of Vesuvius led to the death of the city of Pompeii and its inhabitants. 3000 years ago, a volcanic eruption destroyed the Minoan civilization. A super volcano will be able to throw so much ash into the atmosphere that climate change will begin on Earth, as a result of a nuclear explosion. The chance of this happening is 0.0001%.

In recent years, there has been increasing concern about the cause of the death of humanity as a result of global epidemics. Evidence of this can be seen in the large number of deaths from bird flu, which began in Asia and spread throughout the world quite quickly. It is also worth remembering SARS in 2003. Paradoxically, technological progress, in particular the global transport system, has caused the rapid spread of diseases throughout the world and the death of millions of people. If people cannot cope with such infectious diseases, the world's population will decline sharply. This is potentially possible, as researchers give a chance of 0.0001%.

One version of the death of dinosaurs 65 million years ago is the impact of a large asteroid on the earth. Researchers say that an asteroid with a diameter of up to 5 km on average falls to Earth every 20 million years. As a result of such a catastrophe, countries will perish, political and economic systems will be destabilized, the climate will change and it will be impossible to survive. Researchers give a 0.00013% chance of such a development of events.

There are military bases around the world that host nuclear missile systems, even as countries strive to reduce their number on the planet. Tensions between the United States and Russia in Eastern Europe in recent years have been exacerbated by the crisis in Ukraine, making it clear that nuclear war is more likely than before. If one person presses the button, then the world is doomed. Those who survive the attack will not survive the environmental situation that arises after a nuclear strike. The chance of a nuclear war starting is 0.01%.

The climate has experienced dramatic changes in recent decades, and researchers consider them to be among the greatest threats to humanity. International conferences on these issues are being held all over the world, where the governments of many countries discuss the threats and ways to overcome this situation, but everything they say is not implemented. If climate change occurs, it will lead to famine, drought, mass migrations of people, rising sea levels, as a result of which many territories will become uninhabitable. The consequences of climate change will be particularly acute for poor countries. The chance of such a development of events is estimated at 0.01% and this could happen over the next 200 years.

Since man has learned to produce pathogens that enter the environment, there is a risk that this could play a cruel joke on humanity and destroy it and its ecosystems. Terrorists are especially concerned about the use of biological weapons. Genetic engineering will lead to mutations and the inability of our body to fight pathogenic microorganisms. The chance of such events developing is 0.01%.

We cannot know everything, and researchers suggest that events may occur that will cause the death of humanity. Perhaps it will be an attack by an alien civilization, perhaps experiments by scientists that will lead to the death of civilization. For example, the impact of aerosols on the environment was previously unknown to people, but today everyone is aware of it. In the future, unknown events may occur today that will destroy humanity and even the planet. The chance of such a situation developing is estimated by researchers at 0.1%.

The creation of complex robots and computers is undoubtedly of great importance for the progress of mankind, but it can also lead to a conflict between artificial intelligence and humans. For now, humans control robots, but everything can change. There are military robots that can regenerate and feed themselves using all the materials that are around. Such cyborgs can really threaten the life of civilization, since they have the highest degree of survival. The chances are very high - from 0 to 10%. Why are there robots, and they are already attacking their owners.