Publications

Central Asia is extremely important for the security of Russia, China and the Eurasian region, both historically and at the present stage of development. Unconventional security challenges, led by terrorism, extremism and separatism, which in the official Chinese rhetoric and official documents of the SCO are designated by the term "three forces", pose a serious challenge to the security of China, Russia, the countries of Central Asia and Eurasia in general. Over the 20 years of the SCO's history, proceeding from their "Shanghai spirit", the participating countries have created unique legislative and organizational mechanisms for a joint strike against the "three forces", as well as mechanisms for bilateral and multilateral anti-terrorist exercises. The most important of these is the ―Peace Mission‖ joint exercise, which has been regularly held since 2005. These mechanisms of cooperation within the SCO embody the spirit of solidarity, mutual trust and cooperation, reflect the ability of the members of the organization to jointly counter the "three forces" and respond to related problems, and also symbolize the SCO's determination to protect stability in the region and peace in the world. The organization has made a significant contribution to ensuring security in the region. Nevertheless, in the face of existing problems and new challenges, such as potential competition and disagreements within the organization, problems with new member states after the expansion of the membership, and also the ineffective functioning of some of the SCO security instruments, all SCO members need to strengthen their cooperation and open new ways for organizing the SCO to fulfill well its unique role to ensure security in the territory of the SCO member states, also in Eurasia as a whole. The new model of relations "Russian-Chinese relations of comprehensive partnership and strategic interaction entering a new era", which underlies the SCO, gives the organization greater stability. The SCO is a unique organization on the territory of Eurasia and has implemented an important innovation in the theory and practice of international relations, opened a new model of regional cooperation. Therefore, it can be stated with a high degree of confidence that multilateral cooperation in the field of security will gradually deepen.

The last few years have seen a radical shift that could change the entire structure of international relations. In general terms, it is the transition from bipolarity to multipolarity. An important aspect of this process is the formation of alternative systems of international governance, especially on the regional level. This allows some scholars to speak about the phenomena of the new, non-Western, regionalism, which tends to alter and compete with the Western and Western-like formats of regional integration and institution-building. Russia and China could be considered as the key drivers of this trend. In the past few years, these two powers have put forward several major initiatives for developing transport and logistics, as well as economic and institutional ties between different parts of the continent, including Russia’s Eurasian Economic Union and China’s Belt and Road Initiative. While some scholars argue that China and Russia have different visions of regionalism and distinct views on how a regional order should be arranged, in the last years these two powers have put a lot of effort into synchronizing their regional projects. In 2015, Russian and Chinese leaders signed a Joint Declaration on cooperation in coordinating the development of the Eurasian Economic Union and the Silk Road Economic Belt, which gave a start to numerous initiatives aiming at strengthening and coordinating regional projects of the two powers.

The article is devoted to the study of the evolution of relations between Russia and Mexico at the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century. The article discusses the main stages of deve lopment of Russian-Mexican cooperation in the diplomatic, economic, cultural and political spheres. The author concludes that even having a number of common ground on key international issues, Mexico and Russia have so far failed to form an optimal and productive model of their bilateral relations. Present study has scientific and practical significance, given the fact that by applying of empirical methods of cognition recommendations for the further development of bilateral cooperation have been formulated.

Can international anarchy be stabilized, if not globally, then at least regionally? Those scholars who give a positive answer usually refer to the North Atlantic community which can be categorized as an international society from the viewpoint of the English school. The emergence of such a community outside the West is traditionally considered hardly possible. However, this article argues that it may already be emerging in Eurasia, with Russia and China being the key drivers of this trend. In the past few years, these two powers have put forward a number of major initiatives aimed at developing transport networks and logistics, and deepening economic and institutional ties between different parts of the continent. These include but are not limited to Eurasian Economic Union, supported by Russia, and China’s Belt and Road Initiative. Together, Moscow and Beijing began to form a new platform for security and economic cooperation “from Kaliningrad to Shanghai”—the community of Greater Eurasia. Based on the analysis of the geopolitical logic of these initiatives, this article suggests that a new, non-Western international society may be forming in Eurasia among the states with different political systems and cultures, but common geopolitical aims and fears.

This book defines Eurasianism, a political idea with a long tradition, for a new century. Historically, Eurasia was depicted as a “third continent” with a geographical and historical space distinctively different from both Europe and Asia. Today, the concept is mobilized by the Russian foreign policy elite to imagine a close relationship with China and indirectly inspires the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative. A Russian-Chinese partnership forms the core of a new Eurasian region, yet Turkey, India, Hungary, Central Asia and the other parts of the supercontinent are also embracing Eurasian concepts. This book is of interest to scholars of Russian and Chinese foreign policy, to economists, and to scholars of political thought.

This chapter focuses on the important area of ​​integration of the Greater Eurasia project: defense and security in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The chapter examines in detail the defense and security dimension of Greater Eurasia through the example of military cooperation between China and Russia as the main driver of Greater Eurasia. It is concluded that by 2016, an "average" level of military interaction had been achieved in Russian-Chinese relations, which opens up opportunities for further integration. However, given that relations between the two great powers are built on a solid foundation of national interests and sovereign equality, further military integration of Russia and China is being questioned. The pandemic, in the context of growing contradictions with official Washington, has intensified the more self-confident and assertive behavior of official Beijing in the foreign arena.

The COVID-19 pandemic has subjected international rela-tions to a severe stress test – at the level of both individual states and multilateral associations. Among the obvious challenges are the economic crisis, the crisis of global governance, the growth of protectionist and isolationist senti-ments, the growing military confrontation along the US–China axis. The article focuses on two important areas of integration of the Greater Eurasia project – in the field of defense and security and in the economic sphere in the context of the pandemic. The first part of the article examines the challenges associated with the defense and security sector of Greater Eurasia, using the example of military cooperation between China and Russia. It is concluded that by 2016, an «aver-age» level of military interaction had been achieved in Russian–Chinese rela-tions, which opens up opportunities for further integration. However, given that relations between the two great powers are built on the basis of respect for national interests and sovereign equality, further military integration of Russia and China is being questioned. It is noted that in the face of growing con-tradictions between the PRC and the United States, the pandemic contributed to a more self-confident and assertive behavior of Beijing in the foreign arena. The second part of the article examines the economic and geographical dimension of the integration of Greater Eurasia on the example of relations between the Russian Federation and the PRC in the trade and economic sphere. It is indicated that the absence of an agreement on an additional reduction in oil production between Saudi Arabia, Russia and other OPEC+ countries and the corresponding collapse of oil prices have a significant impact on the development of economic integration in Greater Eurasia. Scenarios for the further economic development of this regional international community after the pandemic are proposed.

The Sino-American rivalry has increased during the pandemic. The on-going decoupling is rather sectoral rather than comprehensive and is reflected in trade and sanctions war, competition, restrictions in such spheres as technologies, investment, science, and education. The contradictions are caused not by the pandemic context by stem from the fundamental structural problems in Sino-American cooperation associated with a change of the economic development model in China and the absence of a compensatory mechanisms in the United States, as well as the transition of countries to the phase of a strategic competition. From a formal point of view it looks like that the main initiator of the confrontation were the United States, but the intention to greater independence were first revealed by the China. It associated with the qualitative changes in the Chinese economy – restructuring of the growth model from export towards domestic demand and Chinese leadership claims in a number of high-tech industries. All this made cooperation with China disadvantageous and not safe (in sense of economic security) for the United States. The 2020 pandemic accelerates natural processes, and the arrival of the new Biden administration will not change their overall direction: the trend towards breaking ties in a number of areas will continue, despite the presence of interested parties, especially in the business sector. But the high economic interdependence still determines the gradual and long-term nature of the decoupling process. Decoupling also has some important consequences for other countries, which, in the context of a strategic confrontation between the two powers, may be faced with the need to choose one of the partners. In the future, some countries may also benefit due to the restructuring of the Chinese-American value chains.

The relations between South Korea and North Korea were improved in 2018 on the basis of the Sunshine policy ideational platform and the inter-Korean agreements reached between the two countries under the progressive administrations of Kim Dae-jung in 2000 and Roh Moohyun in 2007. However, inter-Korean relations had been at a lull since the US-North Korea summit in Hanoi in February 2019 despite the intentions of the parties to develop diverse forms of cooperation. After that, the month of June saw a severe deterioration in the Inter-Korean relations. The aim of this article is to analyze the inter-Korean relations and the North Korean policies of the South Korean governments from 1998 to 2020 as well as explain the reasons behind Seoul’s inability to make progress in dialogue with Pyongyang. South Korea’s prioritizing of its ties with the United States as well as its increased dependence on the United States were the main reason behind the stagnation of inter-Korean relations. Under the international regime of sanctions against the DPRK, Moon Jae-In has failed to put the Sunshine policy into practice, for instance, re-open Kaesong Industrial Complex and Mount Kumgang tourism zone. The fact that inter-Korean economic cooperation was actually still linked to the denuclearization of the DPRK also had a negative impact on the prospects for maintaining the positive dynamics of inter-Korean relations. The exacerbation of inter-Korean relations in June 2020 showed that in the absence of practical inter-Korean cooperation and with the continuing deadlock in the US-North Korean negotiations on the nuclear issue, Pyongyang is not interested in normalizing relations with Seoul and it can concentrate on relations with the United States. At the same time, the intensifying confrontation between China and the United States in the Asia-Pacific region is not conducive to a political settlement of the Korean Peninsula nuclear issue and it can potentially lead to an aggravation of inter-Korean relations.

The article considers the role of science in international cooperation in the Arctic and the setting of Russia’s foreign and domestic policy in the region. To date, the Arctic has become the world's main laboratory for studying the processes of climate change. A comprehensive understanding of the dynamics of climate change is becoming not only a tool for managing climate risks, but also increasingly the basis for the interpretation of the norms of international maritime law (in particular, the interpretation of Article 234 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea), and potentially the specific actions of stakeholders in the Arctic. The paper examines several cases of scientific cooperation in the Arctic focusing mainly on China and Finland. China is a significant Russian foreign partner and simultaneously a new actor in the Arctic region which uses scientific diplomacy as an important tool to expand its influence in the region. Finland, in contrast, is a traditional partner of Russia in the region, sharing common interests for the Arctic countries. The paper concludes that there is a need for a radical revision of the role of scientific research and its positioning in the state policy on the development of the Arctic. The task of ensuring the conditions for security and development in the Arctic requires a shift of Russian science from joining and catching up actor to the leading country that would involve other members  of the international community into cooperation. This task also demands a significant increase in funding for the Arctic science, a revision of the existing institutional links between science, government and business. Besides, there is a need for the transition from an extensively exploitative to a raw materials innovative model of the development of the region, based on the principles of environmentally friendly high-tech development of the Arctic together with other regions of Russia, primarily Siberia and the Far East.

Territorial dispute in the South China Sea (SCS) which involves China and several ASEAN member-states has recently become one of the major threats to international security in Southeast Asia leading to continuous political tensions in the region. It may result not only in a split within ASEAN but also in drawing the non-regional powers into conflict. U.S.A. as the most important of such powers tries to use the existing tensions for strengthening its influence in the region and its stance in confrontation with China. While Moscow has recently made efforts to intensify its presence in Asia, it still does not see the South China Sea region as a foreign policy priority. Generally, it sticks to neutrality on the issue of sovereignty over the disputed islands. At the same time, Russia’s approach to the SCS problem can be characterised by a limited shift towards strengthening support of Beijing’s position. Acting this way Russia wishes to support a strategic partner in order to win its stronger cooperation on other vital issues, such as the problem of Crimea or the US sanctions. This rapprochement should be understood against the background of general international situation characterised by the growing Sino-US confrontation, worsening of relations between Russia and the West, as well as some tendencies in the Asia-Pacific such as the emergence of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue and the introduction of the concept of the “Indo-Pacific” by Washington and its allies which are seen in both Moscow and Beijing as hostile. Despite the numerous political difficulties and legal problems concerning the SCS, the mutual understanding between Russia and China during the last two decades has been strengthening while both countries were confronted by similar threats and challenges. This naturally pushes the positions of Russia and China closer to each other.

The article analyzes the nature of the political system of modern China in the context of the typology of communist political regimes. The author argues that the typologies of communist regimes proposed so far are of little use, since the differences between the regimes were not considered deeply enough, while the ideology factor was not actually used as a criterion for typological differences. The article proposes a new typology of communist regimes, in which the ideological factor is the key criterion. Based on the analysis of various communist regimes in accordance with the ideological criterion, the author identifi es three main types of communist regimes: left-communist, right-communist and bureaucratic, and defi nes the current Chinese regime as evolving from right-communist to bureaucratic. The author concludes that the Chinese political experiment deserves close study and a departure from the Westcentric clichés that still dominate world political science and historical science, and the new typology of communist regimes can serve as a useful tool both for its analysis and for clarifying the prospects for China's development.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze the information on current social protests, which was published in the leading Latin American news websites and actively discussed on the social media platforms to identify the main causes of public discontent and the main problems discussed by Latin Americans. The first part of the paper provides an overview of the materials on the social movements of the fall of 2019, which were published in the news websites, which are the most popular in Latin America, and have the greatest influence, and the biggest Internet traffic volume. The second part is devoted to an overview of hashtags on the topic of mass protests that have gained huge popularity among Latin American users on the biggest social media platforms. A review of informational articles on the autumn social movements, which were published in the leading Latin American newspapers, revealed the main points of view on the factors and causes of these events, and the main problems discussed by Latin Americans. An appeal to various sources, both the countries in which the protests took place and the states that have passed such a crisis, will help readers to see the current socio-political situation in a new way.

Central Asia is extremely important for the security of Russia, China and the Eurasian region, both historically and at present. Unconventional security challenges, led by terrorism, extremism and separatism, which in the official Chinese rhetoric and official documents of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) are designated as the ‘three forces of evil,’ pose a serious challenge to the security of China, Russia, the countries of Central Asia and Eurasia in general.

Over the 20 years of the SCO’s history, proceeding from their ‘Shanghai spirit,’ the participating countries have created unique legislative and organizational mechanisms for a joint strike against the ‘three forces of evil,’ as well as mechanisms for bilateral and multilateral antiterrorist exercises. The most important of these is the Peace Mission joint exercise, which has been regularly held since 2005.

These mechanisms of cooperation within the SCO embody the spirit of solidarity, mutual trust and cooperation, reflect the ability of the members of the organization to jointly counter the ‘three forces of evil’ and respond to related problems, and also symbolize the SCO’s determination to protect stability in the region and peace in the world. The organization has made a significant contribution to ensuring security in the region. Nevertheless, in the face of existing problems and new challenges such as potential competition and disagreements within the organization, problems with new members after the expansion of the membership, and also the ineffective functioning of some of the SCO’s security instruments, all SCO members need to strengthen their cooperation and open new ways for organizing the SCO to fulfil well its unique role to ensure security in the territory of SCO states and in Eurasia as a whole. The new model of relations—‘Russian-Chinese relations of comprehensive partnership and strategic interaction entering a new era’—that underlies the SCO gives the organization greater stability. The SCO is a unique organization on the territory of Eurasia and has both implemented an important innovation in the theory and practice of international relations and opened a new model of regional cooperation. Therefore, it can be stated with a high degree of confidence that multilateral cooperation in the field of security will gradually deepen.