Integration and disintegration processes in the post-Soviet space. Integration processes in the post-Soviet space Publications in other publications

DISCIPLINE SUPERVISION

"Economy of the CIS countries"

Introduction

1. Conditions and factors for the development of integration processes in the post-Soviet space

2. The accession of the CIS countries to the WTO and the prospects for their integration cooperation

Conclusion

List of sources used

Introduction

The collapse of the USSR led to the severance of economic ties and destroyed the huge market into which the national economies of the union republics were integrated. The collapse of the single national economic complex of the once great power led to the loss of economic and social unity. Economic reforms were accompanied by a deep decline in production and a decline in the standard of living of the population, and the displacement of new states to the periphery of world development.

The CIS was formed - the largest regional association at the junction of Europe and Asia, a necessary form of integration of new sovereign states. The processes of integration in the CIS are affected by the different degrees of preparedness of its participants and their different approaches to carrying out radical economic transformations, the desire to find their own path (Uzbekistan, Ukraine), to assume the role of a leader (Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan), to evade participation in a difficult agreement process (Turkmenistan), get military-political support (Tajikistan), solve its internal problems with the help of the Commonwealth (Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia). At the same time, each state independently, based on the priorities of internal development and international obligations, determines the form and scale of participation in the Commonwealth, in the work of its bodies in order to use it as much as possible to strengthen its geopolitical and economic positions.

One of the interesting questions is also the entry of the CIS member states into the WTO. These topical issues for the modern economy will be considered and analyzed in this work.

1. Conditions and factors for the development of integration processes in the post-Soviet space

They began to talk about integration between the countries of the Commonwealth in the very first months after the collapse of the Soviet Union. And this is no coincidence. After all, the entire economy of the Soviet empire was built on planning and administrative ties between industries and industries, on a narrow-profile division of labor and specialization of the republics. This form of ties did not suit most states, and therefore it was decided to build integration ties between the newly independent states on a new, market-based basis 1.

Long before the signing (in December 1999) of the treaty on the creation of the Union State, the CIS was formed. However, throughout the entire period of its existence, it has not proved its effectiveness either economically or politically. The organization turned out to be amorphous and loose, unable to cope with its tasks. Former Ukrainian President L. Kuchma spoke about the crisis of the Commonwealth in an interview with Russian journalists: “At the level of the CIS, we often get together, talk, sign something, then we disperse - and everyone has forgotten ... If there are no common economic interests, what is it for? There is only one sign, behind which there is little. Look, there is not a single political or economic decision that was adopted at the high level of the CIS and would be implemented ”2.

At first, the CIS has undoubtedly played a positive historical role. It was largely thanks to him that it was possible to prevent the uncontrolled disintegration of the nuclear superpower, localize interethnic armed conflicts and, ultimately, achieve a ceasefire, opening the door for peace negotiations.

Because of the crisis trends in the CIS, a search for other forms of integration began, and narrower interstate associations began to form. The Customs Union emerged, which was transformed at the end of May 2001 into the European Economic Community, which included Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan. Another interstate organization, GUUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Moldova), also appeared. True, the functioning of these associations also does not differ in efficiency.

Simultaneously with the weakening of Russia's position in the CIS countries, many centers of world politics were actively involved in the struggle for influence in the post-Soviet space. This circumstance to a large extent contributed to the structural and organizational delimitation within the Commonwealth. The states grouped around our country - Armenia, Belarus. Kaakhstan. Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan - retained their membership in the Collective Security Treaty (DKV). At the same time, Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan and Moldova created a new association - GUUAM, based on outside support and aimed primarily at limiting Russia's influence in the Transcaucasus, the Caspian and Black Sea zones.

At the same time, it is difficult to find a rational explanation for the fact that even countries that distanced themselves from Russia received and continue to receive from it through the mechanisms of the CIS material subsidies tens of times higher than the amount of aid coming from the West. Suffice it to mention the repeated write-offs of multibillion-dollar debts, the preferential prices for Russian energy resources, or the free movement of citizens within the CIS, which allows millions of residents of the former Soviet republics to go to work in our country, thereby relieving socio-economic tension in their homeland. At the same time, the benefits of using cheap labor for the Russian economy are much less sensitive.

Let's name the main factors giving rise to integration trends in the post-Soviet space:

a division of labor that could not be completely changed in a short period of time. In many cases, this is generally inappropriate, since the existing division of labor largely corresponded to the natural, climatic and historical conditions of development;

the desire of the broad masses of the population in the CIS member countries to maintain fairly close ties due to a mixed population, mixed marriages, elements of a common cultural space, the absence of a language barrier, interest in the free movement of people, etc .;

technological interdependence, uniform technical standards, etc.

Indeed, the CIS countries in aggregate have the richest natural and economic potential, an extensive market, which gives them significant competitive advantages and allows them to take a worthy place in the international division of labor. They account for 16.3% of the world territory, 5% of the population, 25% of natural resources, 10% of industrial production, 12% of scientific and technical potential. Until recently, the efficiency of transport and communication systems in the former Soviet Union was significantly higher than in the United States. An important advantage is the geographical position of the CIS, along which the shortest land and sea (across the Arctic Ocean) route from Europe to Southeast Asia passes. Estimated The World Bank, income from the operation of the transport and communication systems of the Commonwealth could amount to $ 100 billion. Other competitive advantages of the CIS countries - cheap labor and energy resources - create potential conditions for economic recovery. It produces 10% of the world's electricity (the fourth largest in the world in terms of its production) 4.

However, these opportunities are used extremely irrationally, and integration as a method of joint management does not yet allow us to reverse the negative tendencies of deformation of reproduction processes and use natural resources, effectively use material, technical, research and human resources for the economic growth of individual countries and the entire Commonwealth.

However, as noted above, the integration processes run into opposite tendencies, which are determined, first of all, by the desire of the ruling circles in the former Soviet republics to consolidate their newly acquired sovereignty and strengthen their statehood. This was considered by them as an unconditional priority, and considerations of economic expediency receded into the background, if integration measures were perceived as a limitation of sovereignty. However, any integration, even the most moderate one, presupposes the transfer of some rights to the unified bodies of the integration association, i.e. voluntary limitation of sovereignty in certain areas. The West, which disapproved of any integration processes in the post-Soviet space and viewed them as attempts to recreate the USSR, first covertly and then openly began to actively oppose integration in all its forms. Considering the growing financial and political dependence of the CIS member states on the West, this could not but hinder the integration processes.

Of considerable importance for determining the real position of countries in relation to integration within the CIS were the hopes for the help of the West in the event that these countries do not "rush" with integration. The unwillingness to take due account of the interests of partners, the inflexibility of positions so often encountered in the politics of the new states, also did not contribute to the achievement of agreements and their practical implementation.

The readiness of the former Soviet republics and integration was different, which was determined not so much by economic as by political and even ethnic factors. From the very beginning, the Baltic countries were against participation in any structures of the CIS. For them, the desire to distance themselves from Russia and their past as possible further in order to strengthen their sovereignty and "enter Europe" was dominant, despite the high interest in maintaining and developing economic ties with the CIS member states. A restrained attitude towards integration within the CIS was noted on the part of Ukraine, Georgia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, more positively - on the part of Belarus, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan.

Therefore, many of them viewed the CIS, first of all, as a mechanism of "civilized divorce", striving to implement it and strengthen their own statehood in such a way as to minimize the inevitable losses from breaking existing ties and avoid excesses. The task of real rapprochement between countries was relegated to the background. Hence the chronic unsatisfactory implementation of the decisions made. A number of countries have tried to use the mechanism of integration grouping to achieve their political objectives.

1992 to 1998 in the bodies of the CIS, about a thousand joint decisions were made in various areas of cooperation. Most of them "remained on paper" for various reasons, but mainly because of the reluctance of the member countries to go to any limitation of their sovereignty, without which real integration is impossible or has an extremely narrow framework. A well-known role was played by the bureaucratic nature of the integration mechanism, its lack of control functions. So far, not a single major decision (on the creation of an economic union, a free trade zone, a payment union) has been implemented. Progress has been made only in certain parts of these agreements.

Criticism of the ineffective work of the CIS has become especially audible in recent years. Some critics generally doubted the viability of the very idea of integration in the CIS, while others saw the reason for this ineffectiveness as bureaucracy, cumbersomeness, and irregularity of the integration mechanism.

The main obstacle to successful integration was the lack of its agreed goal and consistency of integration actions, as well as the lack of political will to achieve progress. As already mentioned, some of the ruling circles of the new states have not yet disappeared from the expectation of gaining benefits from distance from Russia and integration within the CIS.

Nevertheless, despite all doubts and criticism, the organization retained its existence, since it is needed by most of the CIS member states. One cannot discount the hopes widespread among the broad strata of the population of these states that the intensification of mutual cooperation will help to overcome the serious difficulties that all post-Soviet republics have encountered in the course of transforming socio-economic systems and strengthening their statehood. Deep kinship and cultural ties also pushed for the preservation of mutual ties.

Nevertheless, as the formation of their own statehood took place, the fears of the ruling circles of the CIS member countries diminished that integration could entail the undermining of sovereignty. The possibilities of increasing earnings in hard currency due to the further reorientation of fuel and raw materials exports to the markets of third countries were gradually exhausted. The growth in the export of these goods now became possible mainly due to new construction and expansion of capacities, which required large investments and time.

As a manuscript

BONDAREV SERGEY ALEXANDROVICH

INTEGRATION PROCESSES

IN THE POST-SOVIET SPACE

Specialty 08.00.14– World economy

dissertation for a scientific degree

candidate of economic sciences

Moscow - 2008

The work was done at the Department of World Economy

Russian State University of Trade and Economics

The defense will take place on April 1, 2008 at 12 o'clock at a meeting of the dissertation council D 446.004.02 at the Russian State University of Trade and Economics at the address: 125993, Moscow, st. Smolnaya, 36, RGTEU, aud. 127.

The dissertation can be found in the scientific library of the Russian State University of Trade and Economics.

Scientific Secretary

dissertation council

candidate of economic sciences, associate professor Krasyuk I.N.

BASIC PROVISIONS OF WORK

Relevance of the research topic. The processes of globalization, covering the world economy and politics, have an increasing impact on the development of the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) as a whole. The potential of the CIS can be successfully realized only subject to timely adaptation of its markets to geopolitical and geo-economic realities, coordinated participation in solving world economic problems.

At the same time, the processes observed in recent years in the CIS are extremely contradictory. On the one hand, the vector of the pro-Russian policy of the majority of its participants has clearly emerged. On the other hand, the contradictions in Russia's relations with states oriented toward Western "centers of power" have deepened. Keeping our strategic interests on post-Soviet space Russia is pursuing a differentiated policy in relation to the countries of the former republics of the Soviet Union, implementing an integration policy with Belarus and Kazakhstan, and a policy of interaction with all other countries.

Asynchrony in the implementation of economic reforms in the CIS countries seriously affects the behavior of economic entities, economic ties between which are becoming a decisive element of liberalized foreign trade. Analysis of foreign trade statistics of the CIS countries shows that the share of mutual trade, with very few exceptions, is gradually decreasing. At the same time, trade and economic ties of all Commonwealth countries, including Russia, with the states of Europe and Southeast Asia are expanding. Thus, we observe the predominance of disintegration processes over integration processes in the post-Soviet space. The foreign economic policy of Western countries is also being actively pursued in this direction.

A topical area of activity of the leaders of the Commonwealth countries is solving the problems of implementing programs of integration cooperation, the benefit of which is due to the fact that, firstly, it is possible to use the previously created economic, based on the intra-industry division of labor, and cultural ties, and, secondly, regional associations that in modern world are the generally accepted way of "normal" existence of states.

We are talking about such structures as the Union State (Russia and Belarus), the Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC - Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan), the Common Economic Space (CES - Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan), GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Moldova). Within the integration associations, political disagreements now and then arise, and their economic failures are due to reasons deeper than momentary interests.

In this regard, the order of the integration steps taken is also a topical issue. For structuring the CIS space, rather vague and at first the most diverse configurations of cooperation at the macro and micro levels are possible (a unified approach to countries can destroy the entire structure). At the same time, production is acquiring a transnational character: economic ties are being established between Russian regions and regions of the CIS countries; large companies enter world markets.

The degree of elaboration of the research topic. In his research, the author relied on the works of Russian scientists and specialists in the field of international economic integration groups, in particular: L.I. Abalkin, Barkovsky A.N., Bogomolova O.T., Bragina E.A., Vardomsky L.B., Vashanova V.A., Godina Yu.F., Grinberg R.S., Zevina L.Z., Ziyadullaeva N.S., Klotsvoga F.N., Kochetova E.G., Nekipelova A.D., Presnyakova V.Yu., Rybalkina V.E., Faminskiy I.P., Khasbulatova R.I., Shishkova Yu. V.V., Shurubovich A.V., Shchetinina V.D.

The study also used the works of foreign economists who laid the theoretical foundations for the analysis of interstate integration processes who contributed to the study of the problems of the international division of labor, primarily B. Balassh, R. Coase, R. Lipsi, J. Mead, B. Olin, U Rostow, A. Smith, J. Stiglitz, P. Stritten, J. Tinbergen, E. Heckscher.

The purpose and objectives of the study. The purpose of the dissertation is to develop a differentiated approach to the development of economic cooperation between Russia and the countries of the former Soviet Union in the format of multilateral integration ties, based on determining the position of Russia in relation to each of the existing integration associations in the post-Soviet space.

To achieve this goal, the following tasks were set and solved:

analyze the dynamics and main directions of economic cooperation between Russia and the CIS countries;
to identify the reasons and factors that determine the content of integration processes with the participation of Russia and the countries of the Commonwealth;
to conduct a comparative analysis of the economic development of existing integration associations and determine the directions of expanding Russia's position in them;
to identify differentiated approaches to the development of bilateral relations with the CIS countries in the main areas of cooperation and sectoral aspects of foreign economic relations, which will maximally take into account the economic interests of Russia;
highlight the stages of the formation of a single economic space within the framework of integration associations existing in the post-Soviet space in the medium term;
to outline the prospects for the development of the integration process within the CIS.

Research object are the international integration processes taking place in the post-Soviet space with the participation of Russia.

The subject of research the economic relations of Russia with the CIS states are discussed, which are considered in the format of the development of multilateral and bilateral relations, taking into account the main directions of cooperation and integration aspects of foreign economic relations in the post-Soviet space.

Methodological and theoretical foundations of the study. The goals and objectives of the study involve the use of methods of system-structural and situational analysis, expert assessments, historical-chronological, monographic and statistical analysis, a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches to the study of the phenomena under consideration.

The methodological and theoretical basis of the dissertation work is the works of classics on the problems of the world economy and the international division of labor, research by Russian and foreign scientists on international economic integration.

The informational basis was the materials of the Interstate Statistical Committee of the CIS, Goskomstat of Russia, official data of the national statistical services of the Commonwealth countries, customs statistics of Russia, analytical and statistical reviews of the Executive Committee of the CIS, as well as international organizations, publications in domestic and foreign press.

The work uses the regulatory framework that determines the conditions for the creation of a free trade zone within the CIS, the formation of a union of Russia and Belarus, the EurAsEC and the CES.

Scientific novelty of dissertation research lies in the fact that the possibility of different-speed development of integration processes in the post-Soviet space in the format of bilateral and multilateral ties has been proved. In the dissertation, the following results were obtained, containing scientific novelty.

A change in the balance of forces in the integration processes in the post-Soviet space has been revealed: Russia has ceased to be the only economically powerful power, the activity and scale of activities of foreign economic and political influences in the post-Soviet space from the side, primarily the United States and the European Union, have increased in order to include certain member countries CIS in the sphere of its interests.
It has been proved that the entry of the countries of the former USSR into the world economy requires further deepening of the economic integration of the states of the CIS region, since within the framework of integration associations there are prerequisites for the elimination of parallel industries and concentration of efforts on cardinal areas of joint development, for mastering the production of world science-intensive products, for agreeing common positions and coordination of activities for countries' accession to the WTO.
It has been established that the fragmentation of the post-Soviet space occurs in modes of different-speed and multi-level integration, more deeply in the Union State, less in the EurAsEC. At the same time, the current design of integration alliances is difficult to manage and leads to duplication and diffusion of efforts.
The necessity to take into account the speed of formation of sectoral markets in the post-Soviet space has been substantiated. At the same time, the most high-speed markets are highlighted in terms of importance and dynamics of development: energy and transport services; medium-speed commodity market and capital market; slow-paced markets - financial and stock markets.
The author has developed a differentiated approach to integration processes within the framework of integration associations - the Union State, the EurAsEC and the Common Economic Space, which consists in the fact that as the main directions of economic cooperation of the Union of Russia and Belarus, it is proposed to conduct a coordinated macroeconomic policy; synchronization of institutional transformations, modernization processes, integration of the economies of both countries into the world economy; formation of a single customs, monetary, scientific, technological and information space, stock market and labor market; in relation to the EurAsEC, it was proposed to adjust the actions on the different-speed movement of the Community countries towards the formation of the Customs Union and subsequent stages of integration, as well as to strengthen interaction with other integration associations; for the CES, it is recommended to coordinate actions with the member states on the creation of the Customs Union and the formation of a regulatory framework for a single economic space.

The practical significance of the study. The dissertation materials can be used in the practical work of federal and regional executive authorities, including the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade of the Russian Federation, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, the Federal Customs Service in the development of sectoral areas of cooperation within the CIS and Russia's foreign economic strategy in relation to countries. Commonwealth; Russian research institutes engaged in economic research; educational institutions - in the development of basic and special courses on the world economy and international economic relations.

Approbation of work. The developed differentiated approach to the development of economic cooperation between Russia and the countries of the former Soviet Union and, first of all, with Ukraine in the format of multilateral integration ties is used in the practical activities of the Trade Representation of the Russian Federation in Ukraine. The research results are used in the educational process in the study of disciplines: "World Economy", "International Economic Relations", "International Economic Organizations". The above results, provisions and conclusions of the dissertation research are published in scientific works author, including in the abstracts of reports and speeches at the International Scientific and Practical Conference "Globalization and Development Problems of the Russian Federation" MVS (Moscow, 2002), "Topical issues of the development of the Russian economy: theory and practice" VGIPU (N. Novgorod, 2006), " National traditions in trade, economics, politics and culture "within the framework of the Vasilievsky readings of the RGTEU (Moscow, 2006), in articles published in the magazines" Industrial Bulletin "," Bulletin of the RGTEU "and in collections of scientific articles of the RGTEU and VGIPU.

Publications. The main provisions of the dissertation are presented in the number of six printed works with a total volume of 1.9 pp.

Study structure. The dissertation consists of an introduction, three chapters, a conclusion, a bibliography and annexes. The volume of the thesis is 170 pages of typewritten text, contains 17 diagrams, 18 appendices.

In the introduction the relevance of the research topic is substantiated, the goal, objectives, object and subject of research, as well as research methods, are determined, its scientific novelty and practical significance are revealed.

In the first chapter"Trends of integration and regionalization in the CIS space" the author examines modern scientific approaches to the phenomenon of integration in modern economic literature and the analysis of its economic essence, considers various theories of integration processes, which make it possible to substantiate that the further development of integration in the post-Soviet space, depending on the goals and transit time the integration process can occur at different speeds.

In the second chapter“Processes of Differentiated Integration of the Markets of the CIS Countries” the author analyzed the different-speed development of sectoral markets in the CIS space, investigated the dynamics and main factors of the development of trade and economic relations between Russia and the Commonwealth countries.

In the third chapter"Integration associations in the CIS countries and problems of mutual cooperation" the author considered the prospects for the formation and implementation of regional associations in the post-Soviet space, identified the main directions for the further development of economic relations within these organizations, formulated the main provisions of the strategy of Russia's participation in each of these associations.

In custody conclusions and proposals were formulated, substantiated by the author in the conducted dissertation research in accordance with its purpose and objectives.

MAIN CONTENT OF THE DISSERTATION

The study of modifications of the concept of "integration" made it possible to establish that international economic integration is a process of economic and political unification of countries on the basis of deep stable relationships and division of labor between national economies, the interaction of their economies at various levels and in different forms.

There are several definitions of integration, formulated by various scientific schools of modern economic thought: market, market-institutional, structural (structuralist) schools.

Alternative concepts of international economic integration have also emerged within the framework of existing scientific schools. They are differentiated depending on the goals and time of the integration process.

In the domestic theory of integration, emphasis is placed on the content side of this phenomenon: on the patterns of the intersectoral and intrasectoral division of labor, on the processes of international interweaving of capital and production, or even more broadly on the interpenetration and interweaving of national production cycles as a whole. At the same time, integration is viewed as a complex, multi-aspect, self-developing historical phenomenon, which at first emerged in the most developed, from a technical, economic and socio-political point of view, regions of the world and, step by step, involved new countries in this process as they matured. to the necessary economic, political and legal conditions.

Since the mid-90s, the concept of multi-speed integration has prevailed in Russia and in a number of other CIS countries. Multi-speed integration implies that the participating countries are moving towards the same goals, but economically weaker ones do it more slowly.

Realizing the concept of the multi-dimensional integration model, the CIS is entering a qualitatively new stage in its development, which is characterized by a transition to real integration based on the coinciding interests of the participating countries. This is happening in different formats, which is commonly called multilevel and multi-speed integration, and it is in line with world experience, including European. Now, along with multi-speed integration, the concept of multi-format integration has appeared. Multi-format integration means that goals, forms of integration can be different countries different. Multi-level and multi-speed integration within the Commonwealth does not contradict the interests of its member states. The research carried out by the author has proved that the main factor in the formation of this process is the objective economic prerequisites.

A similar phenomenon (now experts often use the term "differentiated integration") was typical for European Union the period of the 90s of the twentieth century, when the EU member states united in interest groups, and their policies deviated from the general line of development of the European Union.

The positive dynamics of foreign trade of the CIS countries in recent years indicates that the countries are actively increasing their export potential, both in mutual trade with each other and with other foreign countries. The analysis shows that, since 1999, the total volume of exports of the Commonwealth countries, while maintaining positive growth dynamics, began to gradually increase. Average growth rates of total exports of the CIS countries in the period from 1999 to 2005 amounted to 23%, the average growth rate of imports - 21%.

The orientation of the CIS countries towards the preferential development of economic ties with industrialized countries led to the fact that the share of highly processed products in the structure of countries' exports in 2005 was extremely low. So, in Belarus, the share of machinery, equipment and Vehicle is 23.2%, Ukraine - 17.3%, Georgia - 19%, and in Russia - only 7.8%. Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Kazakhstan practically do not export similar products. In the commodity structure of exports of most of the Commonwealth states, both to the CIS countries and to others foreign countries more than half are raw materials.

For the period 1999 - 2005 Russia has managed to maintain fairly intensive trade relations with the CIS states and maintain a trade turnover at a fairly high level. The overall efficiency of these trade ties for Russia increased - the growth rate of Russian exports to the CIS countries significantly exceeded the growth rate of Russian imports from these countries (the average growth rate of exports for this period was 15% per year, imports - 10.3% per year), increased the absolute volumes of the foreign trade surplus, the ratio of import-export coverage increased.

Despite the absolute increase in trade between Russia and other CIS countries over the past years, their trade and economic ties show a clear tendency to weakening, the reorientation of most of the CIS member states (primarily Russia itself) to other foreign countries, a sharp decline in the share of Russia in trade of the CIS countries, as well as the preservation in the trade structure of the export of the CIS countries mainly of raw materials and products of a low degree of industrial processing.

Based on the study of the main changes that took place in 1991 - 2006 in the structure of industries of the Commonwealth states, it was concluded that the main way to promote economic cooperation seems to be the activation of forms of interaction leading to the deepening of the integration of states.

In the analyzed period, it was revealed that the unstructured economic space of the CIS was unable to respond to the challenges of globalization. Weak interaction between integration associations, the slow progress of the integration process in them, and at times rollback and stagnation, elements of rivalry sharply reduce the economic and technological potential of the CIS. Disunity makes it impossible for either Russia or other Commonwealth countries to compete on equal terms with economically powerful powers and integration associations, to weaken adverse external influences (price shocks, uncontrolled capital flows, illegal migration, drug trafficking, smuggling, etc.).

A comprehensive analysis of world economic relations made it possible to conclude that the new scientific and technological basis for the development of the world economy has changed the view of comparative advantages in international trade. Once they were mainly cheap labor and raw materials, now - the novelty of products, its information saturation, manufacturability and science intensity. All this requires large-scale capital investments, which can be formed and pay off, first of all, with the pooling of investment funds and the presence of large markets that tend to expand. Thus, investments should determine the prospect of expanded reproduction and innovative development of the economies of all CIS states. In the medium term, in our opinion, the main attention should be paid to overcoming the technological lag behind developed countries and providing the countries of the Community with highly qualified personnel.

One of the most important factors in the transition to a new stage - the period of economic growth and fundamental restructuring of the economies of the CIS member states, their effective interaction in the period of overcoming the economic crisis, stabilization and recovery of national economies - is the development of interstate investment activities. These issues are strategic and common for all states of the Commonwealth, despite the fact that each of them has its own characteristics that require tactical concretization.

It is necessary to objectively assess not only current, but also geopolitical realities, which is especially important in conditions when the CIS is a Eurasian union with its own socio-economic characteristics. It is impossible not to take into account the long-term practice of traditional good-neighborly relations of the peoples living on the territory the former Soviet Union, their economic and cultural ties. All this creates real preconditions for the formation of a stable integrated association of states, the formation of a single space without internal borders, and the gradual leveling of the levels of economic development of the Commonwealth states.

With all the objective and subjective difficulties of trade and economic relations of the CIS countries on the way of their integrational rapprochement and adaptation to new conditions of cooperation, they have invaluable experience close economic interaction in a common economic space.

After analyzing a large amount of factual material, the author concluded that multi-format and different-speed integration is one of the models acceptable for all CIS countries, which confirms the freedom of their actions and coexistence within the framework of the Commonwealth.

The study found that this model of integration is based on two main prerequisites: the presence of a single integration goal and the impossibility of its simultaneous achievement by all CIS member states due to political, economic and other reasons.

Today, in the post-Soviet space, six integration political and economic associations have been created or are being formed, in five of which the Russian Federation takes part - the CIS, the Union State, the EurAsEC, the CES. The only regional organization in the post-Soviet space in which Russia does not participate is GUAM, which unites Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova.

It seems that the Union State and the EurAsEC have the most realistic prospects among the integration associations of the Commonwealth countries.

The Union of Russia and Belarus is an integration association with a phased organization of a single political, economic, economic, military, customs, currency, legal, humanitarian and cultural space. To provide financial support for the tasks and functions of the Union State, a budget is adopted annually, which in 2007 amounted to 3.78 billion rubles, while the budget of the CIS and EurAsEC is 350 and 250 million rubles.

The Eurasian Economic Community is an international economic organization of a number of post-Soviet states, engaged in the formation of common external customs borders, the development of a single foreign economic policy, tariffs, prices and other components of the functioning of the common market.

Within the framework of the EurAsEC, positive results have been obtained in the field of trade and economic cooperation, in the field of liberalization of mutual trade. To date, important steps have been taken to form a single customs territory, to harmonize and unify the national foreign economic legislation of the EurAsEC member states. In trade between the countries of the Community, the existing restrictions have been practically eliminated and a free trade regime without exceptions is in effect. .

Under the CES, the member states understand the economic space that unites the customs territories of the member states, where mechanisms for regulating economies operate based on uniform principles that ensure the free movement of goods, services, capital and labor, and a single foreign trade and agreed upon, to the extent and to the extent that it is necessary to ensure equal competition and maintain macroeconomic stability, tax, monetary and monetary policy.

The design of the CES provides a potential opportunity to realize a deeper level of integration of Russia with the main partners in the CIS. In the short term, extremely urgent problem becomes the "project content" of the Agreement on the CES.

One of the conditions for increasing the efficiency of economic integration of the CIS countries is the process of forming “sectoral” common markets in areas where there is a common interest: the fuel and energy complex (FEC), industrial cooperation, investment and trade and economic cooperation.

The study notes that in the integration cooperation of the member states of the Commonwealth of Independent States, the highest rates of development are observed in the sectoral structure of the fuel and energy complex economies, and are reflected in the electric power industry.

Now, within the framework of a single energy space, an agreement has been concluded on the parallel operation of the energy systems of the CIS member states. Armenia and Tajikistan interact with their leading regional partner, played by Iran .

At the moment, a single energy market of the CIS countries has not yet been created, therefore, it seems expedient to develop priority areas for the development of the Commonwealth's energy sector to enhance the role of the energy component in sectoral integration in various formats in the post-Soviet space.

The development of investment activity in the states of the Commonwealth is a complex, multifactorial process of realizing real economic integration. Interstate investment in the CIS economy is located on initial stage and at the present time it is not enough to give this process a high-speed character. Therefore, in the dissertation research, the author proposed a number of evolutionary economic measures to intensify further development and increase the efficiency of investment processes between the CIS member states.

According to the author, the proposed system of measures will provide optimal conditions for creating an attractive investment image of the Commonwealth states for domestic and foreign investors, as well as intensify interstate investment and leasing activities for the purpose of real integration and effective development of the CIS economy.

The development of the CIS region meets, first of all, the economic interests of Russia: its role as a leader is strengthened, the search for appropriate positions in the world market becomes easier, there is an opportunity to almost double the market and expand the expansion of Russian capital to countries with familiar conditions, traditions and historical ties, including through joint action with regional partners.

The Program of Action of the Republic of Belarus and the Russian Federation to implement the provisions of the Treaty on the Establishment of the Union State defines the directions of work on the construction of the Union State, according to which the formation of a single economic space will continue on the basis of annually developed annual and mid-term forecasts of the socio-economic development of the Union State, forecast balances of demand and proposals for the most important types of products, as well as balances of fuel and energy resources of the Union State; implementation of a unified trade and customs tariff policy; coordination of actions to join the World trade organization; formation of a single customs space; unification of customs tariffs.

The practice of Russian-Belarusian interaction has shown that the integration processes in relations between the two countries are developing quite contradictory and unevenly, and are facing serious difficulties. Huge potential opportunities for integration remain largely unrealized, in some areas there is a "rollback".

The formation of the EurAsEC is taking place with the decisive role of Russia both from the economic (the Community's GDP in 2005 was 89.3%) and from the political point of view. It seems that Russia, due to historically formed reasons, should not lose the role of the leader in the Community, and it should remain the leading one in the EurAsEC.

The practical result of economic integration in the region is the possibility of using the experience of the European Union, which in practice actively applies the principle of multi-speed integration for countries with different levels of economic development and political interest to participate in mature forms of integration cooperation.

Multi-speed and multi-level integration in the EurAsEC region is objectively determined by significant differences between the two groups of countries in the level of their economic development, the degree of maturity of national financial markets, the convertibility of national currencies, the direction and intensity of foreign economic relations and settlements.

An important direction in the development of integration processes in the CIS space is the formation of the Common Economic Space. The emergence of a new integration project is due to the dissatisfaction of the participating countries with the real economic return from the activities of existing regional associations within the CIS, their slow progress towards integration.

At present, a regulatory and legal framework is being formed, which in the future will provide a practical "launch" of the project. The current stage of the legislative work on the formation of the CES is facing serious difficulties, based on fundamental differences in the views of the parties on the prospects for integration in the proposed format, and, above all, of Ukraine.

Economic cooperation in the CIS is carried out at different levels: along with interstate relations and, accordingly, existing interests at the national-state level, there are corporate and interregional levels of interaction, and, therefore, there are interests of individual industries, companies, regions.

The study notes that cooperation with the CIS countries has a strategic priority in the foreign policy of the Russian Federation.

The strategy of economic cooperation with the CIS countries should be considered in the format of developing multilateral and bilateral relations, taking into account the main directions of cooperation and sectoral aspects of foreign economic relations.

The main objective of the strategy is to develop such approaches in the development of external relations that will maximally take into account the economic interests of Russia, promote the growth of export volumes, primarily of machinery and equipment, and expand investment cooperation. The solution to this problem is possible only if Russia's strategy takes into account the fundamental interests of each of the Commonwealth states and contains mutually beneficial options for cooperation.

3. MAIN PUBLICATIONS ON THE THEME OF THE DISSERTATION

Bondarev S.A. On the issue of the formation of a single energy space in the CIS countries // Bulletin of the Russian State Trade and Economic University. 2007. No. 2 (18). 0.4 pp

Publications in other publications

Integration trends in the post-Soviet space are generated by the following main factors:

A division of labor that could not be completely changed in a short period of time. In many cases, this is generally inappropriate, since the existing division of labor largely corresponded to the natural, climatic and historical conditions of development;

The desire of the broad masses of the population in the CIS member countries to maintain fairly close ties due to a mixed population, mixed marriages, elements of a common cultural space, the absence of a language barrier, interest in the free movement of people, etc .;

Technological interdependence, uniform technical standards.

Despite this, the tendencies towards delimitation in the first year of the Commonwealth's functioning clearly prevailed. There was a landslide rupture of traditional economic ties; administrative and economic barriers, tariff and non-tariff restrictions were erected on the way of commodity flows; Failure to fulfill the obligations assumed at the state and grassroots levels became widespread.

During the existence of the Commonwealth, about a thousand joint decisions in various areas of cooperation were made in the CIS bodies. Economic integration is expressed in the formation of interstate associations from the CIS member states. The dynamics of development is presented as follows:

Ø Establishment Agreement Economic Union, which included all the CIS countries, with the exception of Ukraine (September 1993);

Ø Agreement on the establishment of a free trade zone signed by all CIS member states (April 1994);

Ø Agreement on the establishment of the Customs Union, which by 2001 included 5 CIS countries: Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan (January 1995);

Ø Treaty on the Union of Belarus and Russia (April 1997);

Ø Treaty on the creation of the Union State of Russia and Belarus (December 1999);

Ø Treaty establishing the Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC), which includes Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan, designed to replace the Customs Union (October 2000);

Ø Agreement on the formation of the Common Economic Space (CES) of the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation and Ukraine (September 2003).

However, these and many other decisions have remained on paper, and the potential for interaction has so far been unclaimed. Statistics confirm that the legal mechanisms have not become effective and sufficient for the integration of the economies of the CIS countries. And if in 1990 the share of mutual deliveries of 12 CIS states exceeded 70% of the total value of their exports, then in 1995 it was 55, and in 2003 - less than 40%. At the same time, first of all, the share of goods with a high degree of processing is decreasing. At the same time, in the EU, the share of domestic trade in the total volume of exports exceeds 60%, in NAFTA - 45%.

The processes of integration in the CIS are affected by the varying degrees of preparedness of its member countries and different approaches in them to carrying out radical economic transformations, the desire to find their own path (Uzbekistan, Ukraine), to assume the role of a leader (Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan), to evade participation in a difficult negotiation process (Turkmenistan), to receive military-political support (Tajikistan), to solve their internal problems at the expense of the Commonwealth (Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia).

At the same time, each state independently, based on the priorities of internal development and international obligations, determines the form and scale of its participation in the Commonwealth and in the work of its common bodies in order to use it to the maximum extent in the interests of strengthening its geopolitical and economic positions. The main obstacle to successful integration was the lack of an agreed goal and consistency of integration actions, as well as the lack of political will to make progress. Some of the ruling circles of the new states have not yet disappeared from the expectation of gaining benefits from distance from Russia and integration within the CIS.

On the path of independent and separate management, sub-regional political alliances and economic groupings arose, caused by a multi-vector foreign strategy. Today, the following integration associations exist in the CIS space:

1. Union State of Belarus and Russia (SGBR);

2. Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC): Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan;

3. Common Economic Space (CES): Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan;

4. Central Asian Cooperation (CAC): Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan.

5. Unification of Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Moldova (GUUAM);

Unfortunately, over the entire period of its existence, none of the regional entities has achieved significant success in the declared integration. Even in the most advanced SGBR and EurAsEC, the free trade zone is not fully operational, and the Customs Union is in its infancy.

K.A. Semyonov lists the obstacles that lie in the way of the process of creating a single integration space on a market basis between the CIS countries - economic, political, etc.:

First, a deep difference in the economic situation in individual CIS countries has become a serious barrier to the formation of a single economic space. For example, in 1994 the spread of indicators of the state budget deficit in most of the Commonwealth countries was from 7 to 17% of GDP, in Ukraine - 20, and in Georgia - 80%; wholesale prices for industrial products in Russia increased 5.5 times, in Ukraine - 30 times, and in Belarus - 38 times. Such a diversity of important macroeconomic indicators was obvious evidence of the deep delimitation of the post-Soviet republics, the disintegration of the previously common national economic complex.

Secondly, the factors of an economic order that do not contribute to the development of integration processes in the post-Soviet space, of course, include differences in the implementation of economic reforms. In many countries, there is a different-speed movement to the market, market transformations are far from complete, which prevents the formation of a single market space.

Thirdly, the most important factor hindering the rapid development of integration processes within the CIS is the political one. It is precisely the political and separatist ambitions of the ruling national elites and their subjective interests that do not allow creating favorable conditions for the functioning of enterprises from different countries of the Commonwealth in a single intercountry space.

Fourth, the leading world powers, which have long been accustomed to adhering to double standards, play an important role in slowing down the integration processes in the post-Soviet space. At home, in the West, they encourage the further expansion and strengthening of such integration groups as the EU and NAFTA, and with regard to the CIS countries, they adhere to the opposite position. The Western powers are not really interested in the emergence of a new integration group in the CIS that will compete with them on world markets.

The term "integration" is now common in world politics. Integration is an objective process of deepening diverse ties across the planet, achieving a qualitatively new level of interaction, integrity and interdependence in the economy, finance, politics, science and culture. Integration is based on objective processes. The problem of integration development in the post-Soviet space is especially urgent.

On December 8, 1991, a document was signed on the denunciation of the 1922 treaty, which said: “... We, the Republic of Belarus, the Russian Federation, Ukraine, as the founding states of the USSR Union, signed the 1922 Union Treaty, state that the USSR Union as a subject international law and geopolitical reality ceases to exist ... ”. On the same day, a decision was made to establish the Commonwealth of Independent States. As a result, on December 21, 1991, in Alma-Ata, the leaders of 11 of the 15 former Soviet republics signed the Protocol to the Agreement on the Establishment of the CIS and the Alma-Ata Declaration confirming it, which became a continuation and completion of attempts to create a new union treaty.

Before proceeding to the analysis of the integration of states in the space of the former Soviet Union, it is worth raising the question of the relevance of the term “post-Soviet space”. The term “post-Soviet space” was introduced by Professor A. Prazauskas in the article “CIS as a post-colonial space”.

The term "post-Soviet" defines the geographic space of the states that were part of the former Soviet Union, with the exception of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia. A number of experts believe that this definition does not reflect reality. State systems, levels of economic and social development, local problems are too different to list all post-Soviet countries in one group. The countries that gained independence as a result of the collapse of the USSR today are connected, first of all, by a common past, as well as a stage of economic and political transformation.

The very concept of "space" also indicates the presence of some essential commonality, and the post-Soviet space becomes more and more heterogeneous over time. Given the historical past of certain countries and the differentiation of development, they can be called a post-Soviet conglomerate. However, today in relation to the integration processes in the territory of the former Soviet Union, the term “post-Soviet space” is still more often used.

The historian A.V. Vlasov saw something new in the content of the post-Soviet space. According to the researcher, this was his release from the "rudiments that still remained from the Soviet era." The post-Soviet space as a whole and the former republics of the USSR “became part of the global world system,” and in the new format of post-Soviet relations, new “players”, which had not previously been manifested in this region, acquired an active role.

A.I.Suzdaltsev believes that the post-Soviet space will remain an arena of competition for energy communications and deposits, strategically advantageous territories and bridgeheads, liquid production assets, and one of the few regions where there is a constant flow of Russian investments. Accordingly, both the problem of their protection and competition with Western and Chinese capital will grow. The opposition to the activities of Russian companies will grow, the competition for the market traditional for the domestic manufacturing industry, including mechanical engineering, will intensify. Already, in the post-Soviet space, there are no states left in whose foreign economic relations Russia would dominate.

Western politicians and political scientists consider the frequent presence of the term "post-Soviet space" contrived. Former British Foreign Minister D. Miliband denied the existence of such a term. “Ukraine, Georgia and others are not a“ post-Soviet space ”. These are independent sovereign countries with their own right of territorial integrity. It is time for Russia to stop thinking of itself as a relic of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union no longer exists, the post-Soviet space no longer exists. Exists new card of Eastern Europe, with new borders, and this map must be defended in the interests of overall stability and security. I am sure that it is in Russia's interests to come to terms with the existence of new borders, and not to mourn the bygone Soviet past. It is in the past, and, frankly, it is dear to it there. " As we can see, there are no unambiguous assessments of the term “post-Soviet space.

The post-Soviet states are usually divided into five groups, most often by geographic factor. The first group includes Ukraine, Belarus and Moldova or Eastern European countries. The location between Europe and Russia somewhat limits their economic and social sovereignty.

The second group "Central Asia" - Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan. The political elite of these states is faced with problems, each of which is capable of jeopardizing the existence of any of them. The most serious is the Islamic influence and the aggravation of the struggle for control over energy exports. A new factor here is the expansion of China's political, economic and demographic opportunities.

The third group "Transcaucasia" - Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia, a zone of political instability. The United States and Russia have the greatest influence on the policies of these countries, on which both the prospect of a full-scale war between Azerbaijan and Armenia and Georgia's conflicts with the former autonomies depend.

The fourth group is formed by the Baltic states - Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia.

Russia is viewed as a separate group due to its dominant role in the region.

Throughout the entire period that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union and the emergence of new independent states on its territory, disputes and discussions about possible directions of integration and optimal models of interstate associations in the post-Soviet space do not stop.

An analysis of the situation shows that after the signing of the Belovezhskaya agreements, the former Soviet republics were unable to develop an optimal model of integration. Various multilateral agreements were signed, summits were held, coordination structures were formed, but it was not possible to fully achieve mutually beneficial relations.

As a result of the collapse of the USSR, the former Soviet republics were able to conduct their own independent and independent internal and foreign policy... But it should be noted that the first positive results from gaining independence were quickly replaced by a general structural crisis that gripped the economy, political and social spheres. The collapse of the USSR violated the former unified mechanism that had developed over the years. The problems that existed among the states at that time were not resolved in connection with the new situation, but only worsened.

The difficulties of the transition period showed the need to restore the former political, socio-economic and cultural ties, destroyed as a result of the collapse of the USSR.

The process of the integration unification of the former Soviet republics was influenced and today is influenced by the following factors:

· Long-term coexistence, traditions of joint activities.

· A high degree of ethnic mixing throughout the post-Soviet space.

· The unity of the economic and technological space, which has reached a high degree of specialization and cooperation.

· Unifying moods in the mass consciousness of the peoples of the post-Soviet republics.

· The impossibility of solving a number of internal problems without a coordinated approach, even by the forces of one of the largest states. These include: ensuring territorial integrity and security, protecting borders and stabilizing the situation in conflict areas; ensuring environmental safety; preservation of the potential of technological ties, accumulated over decades, meeting the interests of the countries of the former USSR in the short and long term; preservation of a single cultural and educational space.

Difficulties in the solution of external problems by the post-Soviet republics, namely: the difficulties of entering the world market alone and the real possibilities of creating their own market, new interregional, economic and political unions, allowing them to act on the world market as an equal partner in order to protect their own interests from everyone kind of economic, military, political, financial and informational expansion.

Of course, economic factors should be singled out as the most significant, compelling reasons for entering integration.

It can be stated that all of the above and many other factors have shown the leaders of the post-Soviet republics that the former closest ties could not be severed so completely and suddenly.

On the territory of the former USSR, integration has become one of the trends in the development of economic and political processes and has acquired peculiar features and characteristics:

Systemic socio-economic crisis in the post-Soviet states in the conditions of the formation of their state sovereignty and democratization public life, transition to an open market economy, transformation of socio-economic relations;

· Significant differences in the level of industrial development of the post-Soviet states, the degree of market reform of the economy;

· Binding to one state, which largely determines the course of integration processes in the post-Soviet space. In this case, Russia is such a state;

· Availability of more attractive centers of attraction outside the Commonwealth. Many countries began to seek a more intense partnership with the US, EU, Turkey and other influential global actors;

· Unresolved interstate and interethnic armed conflicts in the Commonwealth. ... Previously, conflicts arose between Azerbaijan and Armenia (Nagorno-Karabakh), Georgia (Abkhazia), Moldova (Transnistria). Ukraine is the most important epicenter today.

It is impossible not to take into account the fact that countries that were previously part of a single state - the USSR and had the closest ties within this state - are entering integration. This suggests that the integration processes that unfolded in the mid-90s, in fact, integrate countries that were previously interconnected; integration does not build new contacts, connections, but restores the old ones, destroyed by the process of sovereignty in the late 80s - early 90s of the twentieth century. This feature has a positive property, since the integration process should theoretically be easier and faster than, for example, in Europe, where parties that have not had integration experience are integrating.

The difference in the pace and depth of integration between countries should be emphasized. As an example - the degree of integration of Russia and Belarus, and now, together with them, and Kazakhstan in this moment very high. At the same time, involvement in the integration processes of Ukraine, Moldova and, to a greater extent, Central Asia remains quite low. This is despite the fact that almost all of them stood at the origins of post-Soviet integration, i.e. hinder unification with the "core" (Belarus, Russia, Kazakhstan) largely for political reasons, and, as a rule, are not inclined to give up part of their ambitions for the common good. ...

It should be noted that when summing up the development of integration processes in the post-Soviet space, new partnerships between the former Soviet republics developed in a very contradictory and, in a number of cases, extremely painful. It is known that the collapse of the Soviet Union took place spontaneously and, moreover, not amicably. This could not but lead to the aggravation of many old and the emergence of new conflict situations in relations between the newly formed independent states.

The starting point for integration in the post-Soviet space was the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States. At the initial stage of its activity, the CIS was a mechanism that made it possible to weaken disintegration processes, soften Negative consequences collapse of the USSR, to preserve the system of economic, cultural and historical ties.

In the basic documents of the CIS, an application was made for high-level integration, however, the Commonwealth charter does not impose on states the obligation to achieve ultimate goal, but only captures the willingness to cooperate.

Today, on the basis of the CIS, there are various, more promising associations, where cooperation is carried out on specific issues with clearly defined tasks. The most integrated community in the post-Soviet space is the Union State of Belarus and Russia. The Collective Security Treaty Organization - CSTO - is an instrument of cooperation in the field of defense. Organization for Democracy and Economic Development GUAM, created by Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova. The Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC) was a peculiar form of economic integration. Customs Union and Common Economic Space - stages of the EurAsEC formation. On their basis, another economic association, the Eurasian Economic Union, was created this year. It is assumed that Eurasian Union in the future will serve as a center for more efficient integration processes.

Creation a large number integration formations on the territory of the former Soviet Union is explained by the fact that in the post-Soviet space, the most effective forms of integration are still "groping" through joint efforts.

The current situation on the world stage shows that the former Soviet republics have never been able to work out an optimal model of integration. The hopes of the supporters of preserving the unity of the former peoples of the USSR in the CIS did not come true either.

The incompleteness of economic reforms, the lack of harmonization of the economic interests of partner countries, the level of national identity, territorial disputes with neighboring countries, as well as a huge impact on the part of external players - all this affects the relations of the former Soviet republics, leading them to disintegration.

In many ways, the process of integration of the post-Soviet space today is greatly influenced by the situation that has developed in Ukraine. The former Soviet republics were faced with the choice of which bloc they should join: led by the US and the EU, or Russia. The West is making every effort to weaken Russia's influence in the post-Soviet region, actively using the Ukrainian vector. The situation became especially aggravated after the entry of Crimea into the Russian Federation.

Drawing a conclusion from taking into account the above problems, we can say that at the current stage it is unlikely that a cohesive integration association will be created within all the former Soviet states, but on the whole, the prospects for the integration of the post-Soviet space are colossal. Great hopes are pinned on the Eurasian Economic Union.

Therefore, the future of the former Soviet countries largely depends on whether they follow the path of disintegration, joining more priority centers, or a joint, viable, efficiently operating structure will be formed, which will be based on the common interests and civilized relations of all its members, in full adequate to the challenges of the modern world.

After the collapse of the USSR in December 1991, an agreement was signed on the creation of the Commonwealth of Independent States, which included 12 former union republics: Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan (not included only Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia). It meant that the CIS would allow preserving and deepening economic ties between the former republics of the USSR. The process of formation and development of the CIS was very dynamic, but not without problems.

The CIS countries together have the richest natural and economic potential, a vast market, which gives them significant competitive advantages and allows them to take a worthy place in the international division of labor. They have 16.3% of the world's territory, 5% of the population, 25% of natural resources, 10% industrial production, 12% of scientific and technical potential, 10% of resource-forming goods. Until recently, the efficiency of transport and communication systems in the CIS was several times higher than in the USA and China. An important advantage is the geographical position of the CIS, along which the shortest land and sea (across the Arctic Ocean) route from Europe to Southeast Asia passes. According to the World Bank, the income from the operation of the transport and communication systems of the Commonwealth could amount to $ 100 billion. Other competitive resources of the CIS countries - cheap labor and energy resources - create potential conditions for economic recovery. It produces 10% of the world's electricity (the fourth largest in the world in terms of its production).

Integration trends in the post-Soviet space are generated by the following main factors:

division of labor that could not be changed entirely in a short period of time. In many cases, this is generally inappropriate, since the existing division of labor largely corresponded to the natural, climatic and historical conditions of development;

technological interdependence, uniform technical standards.

Ø Agreement on the establishment of the Economic Union, which included all the CIS countries, with the exception of Ukraine (September 1993);

Ø Agreement on the establishment of a free trade zone signed by all CIS member states (April 1994);

Ø Agreement on the establishment of the Customs Union, which by 2001 included 5 CIS countries: Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan (January 1995);

Ø Treaty on the Union of Belarus and Russia (April 1997);

Ø Treaty on the creation of the Union State of Russia and Belarus (December 1999);

Ø Treaty establishing the Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC), which includes Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia and Tajikistan, designed to replace the Customs Union (October 2000);

Ø Agreement on the formation of the Common Economic Space (CES) of the Republic of Belarus, the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation and Ukraine (September 2003).

1. Union State of Belarus and Russia (SGBR);

2. Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC): Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan;

3. Common Economic Space (CES): Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan;

4. Central Asian Cooperation (CAC): Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan.

5. Unification of Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Moldova (GUUAM);

PROBLEMS:

First, a deep difference in the economic situation in individual CIS countries has become a serious barrier to the formation of a single economic space. The diversity of important macroeconomic indicators was obvious evidence of the deep delimitation of the post-Soviet republics, the disintegration of the previously common national economic complex.

The transition of the new independent states from a command-distribution to a market economy made it impossible or economically inexpedient to preserve the the former USSR mutual economic ties. In contrast to the Western European states, which began their integration rapprochement in the mid-1950s, the technical and economic level of production of the Commonwealth countries, which are part of regional groupings together with Russia, remains at a low level (low in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan). These states do not have a developed manufacturing industry (especially high-tech industries), which, as you know, has an increased ability to connect the economies of partner countries on the basis of deepening specialization and cooperation of production and is the basis for the real integration of national economies.

The already completed accession of a number of CIS countries to the WTO (Armenia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan and Moldova) or the negotiation of accession to this organization that is not synchronized with other partners (Ukraine) also does not contribute to the economic rapprochement of the former Soviet republics. Coordination of the level of customs duties primarily with the WTO, and not with partners from the Commonwealth, significantly complicates the creation of a customs union and a common economic space in the CIS region.

The most negative in its consequences for market transformations in the CIS member states is that none of the newly formed market institutions became an instrument of structural and technological restructuring of production, a "fulcrum" of anti-crisis management, a lever for mobilizing real capital. They also did not create favorable conditions for actively attracting foreign direct investment. Thus, in almost all countries of the Commonwealth during the period of reforms, it was not possible to fully solve the tasks of the initially planned economic transformations.

There remain problems with stimulating small and medium-sized businesses, creating a competitive environment and an effective mechanism for private investment activity. In the course of privatization, the institution of “effective owners” did not take shape. The outflow of domestic capital outside the CIS continues. The state of national currencies is unstable, prone to dangerous fluctuations in rates that increase inflation. None of the countries of the Commonwealth has developed efficient system state support and protection of national producers in the domestic and foreign markets. The crisis of non-payments has not been overcome. The 1998 financial crisis added to these problems the devaluation of a number of national currencies, a downgrade of the credit rating, the flight of portfolio investors (especially from Russia and Ukraine), a weakening of the inflow of foreign direct investment, and the loss of some promising foreign markets.

PROSPECTS

Based on the accumulated experience of integration, taking into account the inertia of the integration processes, this development, as before, will take place through the conclusion of multilateral and bilateral agreements. The experience of implementing bilateral agreements has shown the complexity of solving all problematic issues in the field of trade and economic relations between all the member states of the CIS Economic Union at once. The practice of concluding agreements between ZEiM OJSC and its foreign counterparties is typical. Each country has its own model contract. There is a practice of bilateral agreements on the purchase of Russian products. At the same time, it is possible and advisable to use a different model of evolution. We are talking about the transition from multi-speed integration to differentiated integration of states.

Thus, complementary states must first integrate, and then the rest of the countries must gradually and on a voluntary basis join the free trade zone formed by them, expanding the radius of its action. The duration of such an integration process will largely depend on the formation of an appropriate public consciousness in all CIS countries.

The main principles of the new strategy are pragmatism, alignment of interests, mutually beneficial observance of the political sovereignty of states.

The main strategic landmark is the creation of a free trade zone (by opening national borders to the movement of goods, services, labor and capital) - free enough to take into account the interests and ensure the sovereignty of states. The most relevant areas of activity for the creation of a free trade zone include the following.

Determination of agreed, maximally universal and transparent goals and means of economic integration of the CIS republics based on the interests of each of them and the Commonwealth as a whole.

Improving tariff policy to ensure fair competition in national markets. Removal of unreasonable restrictions in mutual trade and full implementation of the generally accepted in world practice principle of levying indirect taxes "by country of destination".

Coordination and agreement of joint actions of the CIS countries in matters related to their accession to the WTO.

Modernization of the legal framework for economic cooperation, including bringing it in line with European and world standards, convergence of national customs, tax, civil, immigration laws. Model laws of the Interparliamentary Assembly should become a means of harmonizing national legislations.

Creation of an effective negotiating and consultative mechanism and tools for making, executing, controlling decisions for the prompt implementation of multilateral cooperation and taking into account the positions of the CIS states.

Development of common scientific and technical priorities and standards, areas of joint development of innovative and information technologies and measures to accelerate investment cooperation, as well as the preparation of macroeconomic forecasts for the development of the CIS.

Formation of a multilateral payment system, designed to: a) help to reduce the costs of carrying out trade operations between the countries of the Commonwealth; b) ensure the use of appropriate national currencies.

The main of these areas is a high degree of interdependence of the economies of the CIS countries, the potential of which can be effectively used only in conditions of joint well-coordinated work. The technological community of production, based on close cooperation ties of many enterprises, and common transport communications are also preserved.

In any case, the three most important tasks of the integrating countries should initially be solved for the consistent formation of a single information, single legal, single economic space. The first is understood as the provision of the necessary conditions for the smooth and efficient exchange of information, access to it for all subjects economic activity with sufficient homogeneity, comparability and reliability of the data. Firstly, economic information is required, which is required for decision-making at various levels, and secondly, the coordination and unification of legal norms of business and, in general, economic activity. Thus, the preconditions for the creation of a single economic space will arise, which implies the unhindered implementation of economic transactions, the possibility of free choice by the subjects of world economic relations, preferred options and forms. Undoubtedly, the common information, legal and economic space should be based on the principles of voluntariness, mutual assistance, economic mutual benefit, legal guarantee and responsibility for the assumed obligations. The initial basis of integration development is the observance of sovereignty and protection national interests countries, ensuring their international and national economic security.