Russia won the 136- th place in the global index of peacefulness

In the ranking of the global index of friendliness Russia ranked 136th out of 144, sitting between Zimbabwe and Pakistan. These data, as reported by the deputy director of IMEMO Vladimir Baranovsky, are contained in the annual report of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).
The data referred to by Vladimir Baranovsky, published in the annual ' Armaments, Disarmament and International Security ', which was launched on April 7 in Moscow. This is the Russian version of the report, SIPRI, the English version of which will be released June 7th.

Sam Stockholm Peace Research Institute in the rankings peacefulness was not previously seen ( in the press mostly quoted data on its arms sales ), so that it is apparently known about the rating organization Vision of Humanity. In 2009 he published as a supplement to one part of the annual SIPRI.


New data announced by Baranovsky, not too different from that of 2010. Then Russia was 143 out between Georgia and Israel. Worse things were only in Pakistan, Sudan, Afghanistan, Somalia and Iraq, the list is closed (in the new version of the report, Somalia and Afghanistan are reversed ). The first place for peace, as in the past year, is New Zealand, which in the literal and figurative sense, far from being the world's problems. It is followed by Denmark and Norway. ' Small, stable and democratic states traditionally have a high ranking: 14 of the top twenty - is the democratic countries of Western and Central Europe ' - the document says. United States moved from the 85th to the 83rd line, Ukraine - from 97th to 82nd, Kazakhstan - from 95th to 84th.


Ratings, which publishes the Vision of Humanity, seen not so much because of its effect as a very unique technique that is used for their preparation. Namely, as the initial data is taken 23 indicators, both quantitative and qualitative, reflecting the situation in the country and state action in world politics.


In calculating the indicators reflecting the situation in the country, is given more weight, as the authors of the study based on the assumption that the calmer situation in the country, the more peaceful it will behave in their relations with other states.


This methodology was developed by Economist Intelligence Unit ( a research company, a member of The Economist Group, which in particular applies to the magazine The Economist). Directly involved in drawing up the rating Australian Institute of Economics and Peace (The Institute for Economics and Peace). Index of peacefulness to the major project of the Institute.


Russia in last year's ranking was drawn to the bottom of heavy weapons per 100 thousand inhabitants, the overall military capability of the country, a large arms exports, the number of police officers, prisoners, the number of murders, disrespect for human rights and armed conflict. The best results were achieved only on three criteria - the number of displaced persons, the import of arms and funding for UN peacekeeping missions. Since last year, significant changes occurred in the country, so probably the same parameters did not allow Russia to become a pacifist, and this time.

The extreme oddity of this rating is noticeable to the naked eye, as in one heap dumped the crime rate in the country, its defense spending, funding for UN programs and another 20 very diverse criteria. For example, the number of those killed in conflicts abroad in Russia in 2010 was on a par with the U.S. and the UK (the authors of the report is obviously still under the impression from the war in Georgia in 2008 ), and the best performance was in Afghanistan, fighting only .


Are ambiguous, and data on military expenditures. As was noted in an article in The Economist in 2007, when the first ratings came out, some allies of the United States can maintain low expenditure on defense just because America they are very large ( about half of all world ). This is not to mention the fact that large military expenditures may not indicate a desire for someone to attack, and the desire to protect.


Sections on the number of those killed in military operations abroad and the number of armed conflicts in which the participating countries ( albeit without separation into external and internal ), also creates a very interesting picture of international relations. Among the most peace-loving countries are Venezuela and North Korea, not far from them has left Iran and the United States and Britain appear the main aggressors.

However, difficulties do not end here. Objective, quantitative data on the country's involvement in armed conflict and do not necessarily indicate its aggressiveness. If the Western countries did not intervene in the conflict in Libya's Muammar Gaddafi and allowed to destroy their opponents, it would be a peaceful position or not?.



In general, this rating may not converge one end to another and can not come together. China at no attacks, but does not respect human rights, without, however, the lowest number of murders, but it inhibits the peasant protests, increasing at the same time, military spending, but maintaining good relations with its neighbors (but with Japan, then the . Can the sum of these indicators mean anything?.



The problem is that the term ' peace-loving ', as used in respect of the States, and has long been firmly took his place in the arsenal of demagoguery. ' Peacefulness ' of foreign policy - it is solely a political category, not susceptible to objective evaluation (except for some extreme and obvious cases). Moreover, it is almost impossible to objectively assess the country's foreign policy, domestic policy, too, it is difficult to estimate this.


Controversial, and the principle according to which the situation in the country with evaluating its peacefulness considered, along with foreign policy: the most civilized nations were the most frequent and aggressive. All took place in the XIX century of colonization and the wars that led European countries ( they justified the colonization of its more than just high culture ), but nowadays most of the military operations carried out abroad, the United States, 'the leader of the free world '.

And finally, the elementary question of geography. What did New Zealand have recognized the most peace-loving country, if it were on the ground next to Israel with the Palestinian Authority? .

In assessing the peacefulness of the state must be considered as 'but' that quantitative methods ( defense spending for military operations abroad, the number of operations themselves, and m. n. ) Are not applicable. But unpromising and quality - the same actions can be called and the humanitarian operation, and an attempt to overthrow the regime of objectionable. Involvement of the current rating may reflect confusion that reigns in the minds of experts in connection with the transition of international relations in a new quality, as in recent years more and more talk. Visible attempt to combine the old with the new criteria, which so far looks more curiosity.







Discuss.