Search

Introduction. Due to the destabilization of the situation in the countries of the South Caucasus in 2020, the region is of particular relevance today. At the present stage, it is an object of geopolitical competition for numerous international actors: the Russian Federation, the United States of America, the European Union, the Republic of Turkey. The article examines the EU policy in the process of implementing the Eastern Partnership program as part of the European political strategy. In relation to the South Caucasus region, the interim results of the EU’s activities on the implementation of 20 deliverables for 2020 in relation to the states of the South Caucasus are analyzed. Methods. Comparative analysis makes it possible to give a comprehensive assessment of European policy in the region by identifying priority areas and development prospects by comparing the intermediate results of 20 deliverables for 2020 in the South Caucasus countries within the framework of their bilateral relations with the EU. Analysis. The analysis of the activities of the European Union in relation to the South Caucasus countries is associated with the determination of the prospects for the development of the European strategy in the region. The analysis included tracking the dynamics of the implementation of the 20 deliverables for 2020 in relation to Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia, as well as options for developing a European strategy in the South Caucasus countries, taking into account the new policy in the context of the Eastern Partnership beyond 2020. Results. As a result of the analysis, the EU’s competitive advantages in the South Caucasus were determined by identifying areas in which the EU’s geopolitical interests intersect with other actors.

The specific of international relations in recent years has demonstrated the instability of the world system, lack of trust, a trend towards increasing confrontation between international actors. Undermining of the internal political situation in some states of the world system influenced the regional and global level of security and stability. But the vulnerability of the international relations in 2020 has shown the beginning of new geopolitical shifts. The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the international system's transformation, reducing the space for building international cooperation, increasing the conflict in the sphere of international relations. Preservation or reaching a new level of international trends characteristic of the last decade, new trends appear that change the entire system of international communication and interaction at the regional, international and global levels.

Introduction. The contemporary university in the conditions of globalization has enriched its traditional functions to educate and create new elites with attracting not only domestic students but also the foreign youth to the educational and research process. In some cases it can maintain public diplomacy held by the domestic government still influencing it via the requests made by research professionals. This influence may come through the collision of interests of both researchers with students and the government. A Russian university represents mainly the government, that’s why it’s important to discover its role in public diplomacy. Methods and materials. The neoliberal approach to J. Nye’s concept of “soft power” gives the possibility to consider the university as a public institute enriching state’s soft power through public diplomacy. Official speeches of Russian government representatives, publications of Russian researchers, university web-sites give the ground to understand the Russian approach to the methods of public diplomacy. Analysis. First of all, it’s important to reveal the ways to interpret the word combination “public diplomacy” in Russian. There are several possible terms: “publichnaya”, “obshchestvennaya” , “narodnaya” diplomacy. The ways to use the word show different gradations of its meaning in research and political discourses which determine possible actors of public diplomacy in the Russian language. However, Russian officials in contrast to Russian researchers accept the term “obshchestvennaya” to describe the activity of government institutions in public diplomacy. That’s why a university can be considered as an actor of “obshchestvennaya” diplomacy. Secondly, we reveal the ways to implement public diplomacy by Volgograd State University as one of regional universities. Results. Russian researchers following the English-language studies differentiate the concepts of “obshchestvennaya” and “publichnaya” (public) diplomacy according to the actors that implement this policy: the state cannot implement “obshchestvennaya” diplomacy, because it is a prerogative of social movements or non-governmental organizations (NGOs). At the same time, the concept of public diplomacy covers both the work of NGOs and the work of the state in creating its favorable image. However, Russian officials, trying to avoid the use of the Russian term “public diplomacy” incorrectly sounding in Russian, give preference to the phrase “obshchestvennaya diplomacy”, implying that NGOs carry out public diplomacy with the help and on the initiative of the state. Moreover, they are not only public organizations who can conduct policies in this area. In other words, officials suppose that in comparison with research discourse, the circle of participants in “obshchestvennaya” diplomacy enlarges at the expense of state funds and platforms. Thus, a university that implements educational, research and publishing projects is involved in “obshchestvennaya” diplomacy. The position of the university in society, the authority of specialists whom it manages to attract, their international activity provide the soft power of the state.

Introduction. In this paper the public diplomacy of the Russian Federation is considered as one of the important tools of implementing modern Russian ideas and principles of soft power. We observe increased importance of implementing different activity directions within the public diplomacy in the conditions of the difficult international situation. Many of them are at the stage of formation. At the same time, a complex work in this direction can allow to strengthen public diplomacy positions as the effective tool implementation of Russian soft power. Methods. Comparative method allows matching the main specifics of public diplomacy activity and soft power implementation that let us concluding that public diplomacy is the soft power tool. Using this method was possible to establish that realization resources of public diplomacy and soft power are substantially identical. Analysis. The analysis of Russian public diplomacy activity and its clear relation with the main principles of the soft power which are implemented by the modern Russian government is based on search principle of such phenomena extinguishing features as the public diplomacy and soft power. It should be mentioned that many public diplomacy functions are coinciding with main tasks of soft power. The possibility for further public diplomacy institutionalization has been emphasized, and the specifics of unified direction of soft power and Russian diplomacy actions have been characterized. Results. In the result of the research it was revealed that public diplomacy is a direct tool of the soft power implementation. An attempt has been made to delimit the definitions of ‘society diplomacy’, ‘public diplomacy’ and ‘soft power’. Russian researchers’ approaches to public diplomacy understanding and its activity directions have been determined, the most realized directions have also been revealed. E. F. Parubochaya has revealed key differences in the definitions of ‘society diplomacy’ and ‘public diplomacy’, and determined main interlinks of Russian public diplomacy and soft power. N. V. Piskunov has marked basic displays of the modern Russian soft power.

Purpose: to identify and characterize the functional dynamics of the concept of “smart city” implementation in the Russian Federation and the European Union, trends in concepts and practices in the context of society’s digitalization.

Nowadays Islam takes the stage of recovery associated with the peculiar issues associated with the Muslim society. These characteristics are expressed in the spread of ideas of Islamic fundamentalism and its supporters’ confrontation with the rest of the world. This process has affected the Russian Muslims as well, the trend developed after the collapse of the Soviet Union when the post soviet muslims began to realize themselves as part of one of the Muslim Ummah, coming into conflict with the secular law of the Russian Federation. After the Soviet Union’s disintegration, the radical Islamic ideas have begun to appear in Russia, in the conditions of the growth of nationalism these thoughts found a fertile ground. One of these ideas was associated with the construction of Sharia state in the Muslim autonomous republics of the Russian Federation and their subsequent withdrawal from Russian’s membership. The situation for the Russian state in the Muslim republics aggravated the war in Chechnya. Through Chechnya mercenaries from Arab countries started to penetrate to the Russian territory, they also brought the money for the destabilization of the internal situation in Russia. Nevertheless, separatism did not find the mass support in neighboring regions such as Dagestan, Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachay-Cherkessia and Ingushetia. It is evidently that international Jihad ideas were supported financially from abroad. The issue of funding is a key part of the development of Islamic fundamentalism in Russia, the international Islamic funds and organizations gave huge financial assistance to them. At the present moment Russian authorities lead a fruitful and a successful fight against terrorism. In the future, after the completion of the antiterrorist operation in the Middle East hundreds of terrorists may return to Russia with huge experience that can threaten the security of the Russian state.

The article is devoted to an urgent problem dealing with the cooperation of the Turkish Republic and Azerbaijan Republic in the military sphere at the end of 20th – the beginning of 21st century. For Azerbaijan’ s leaders Turkey has always been a special partner. This statement has an explanation. Ankara was the first state, which recognized the independence of Azerbaijan Republic. Moreover, Turkish government made great efforts to strengthen new state in different spheres. Military ties were one of the most important for both sides. The cooperation between two states in the military sphere can be subdivided into several periods. The article gives the detailed analysis of normative documents concluded by the Republics’ governments. The first period of military contacts (1990s) was the time of Turkish educational support. Ankara provided training assistance to the military forces of Azerbaijan. Military staff was restrained by Turkish instructors. Special uniform, armament and other equipment to make transformation was given to Baku by Turkish partners. Step by step, Azerbaijan’ s military sphere was moving to Western standards. The year 1999 has become an important period for the military relations of Ankara and Baku. Since this year the military cooperation has extended and intensified, it is possible to name it as a new period of states’ military collaboration. Turkish government gave financial aid to Ministry of Defense of Republic of Azerbaijan, provided the material and technical support to Baku for improving long-term military cooperation. In 2010 the Turkey-Azerbaijan Strategic Partnership Agreement was signed. It should be noticed that Baku refused to sign the agreement of Azerbaijan’s participation in Collective security treaty organization, leaving the block of CSTO states headed by the Russian Federation. It’s possible to say about the strengthening of the Baku-Ankara alliance. This action may lead to complication of Baku-Moscow relations and destabilize mutual relations. Mutual military ties between two Turkish states are shown in the context of Russia’s interests in the region.