NEO-AUTHORITARIAN INTERVENTION: PURPOSE, SUBJECTS, TOOLS, CONSEQUENCES.

This paper will explore the purpose, system of subjects, principal tools and consequences of neo-authoritarian intervention. The peculiarities of the neo-authoritarian regime, neo-authoritarian intervention, and export of neo-authoritarianism are clarified. China and Russia are selected as the main cases for analysis. The purpose of neo-authoritarian intervention is defined as the intention to strengthen the internal stability of non-democratic regimes and to broaden their influence on international processes, the effort being to change the world order and destroy liberaldemocratic values. It is argued that the key subjects of neoauthoritarian intervention are the governments of neoauthoritarian states and a great number of actors (puppet parties; government-organized non-governmental organizations; marginal, ultra-radical social and political movements; statecontrolled media; unscrupulous analytical centres; and international multilingual networks of TV, radio broadcasts, news agencies, which are financed by neo-authoritarian governments). The system of tools of neo-authoritarian influence includes tools of: power; influence within the soft power; subversion; value modification; election tampeering; and pressure on international organizations. The tools of neo-authoritarian intervention are based on the classic tools of authoritarianism, but are modernized due to digitalization, information and communication progress, and the other technologies. Neo-authoritarian intervention is proven to increase the risks to global security. The main consequences of the strengthening of neo-authoritarian intervention on a global scale are the growth of threats to democracy, the risks of changing the world agenda. The consequence of neo-authoritarian interference in the internal affairs of non-democratic states is the growth of dependence on neo-authoritarian exporter states, further socio-political instability, increased use of force in solving socio-political problems. The research states that in the case of neo-authoritarian intervention in the affairs of democratic states, the consequences may include both effective counteraction to neo-authoritarian interventions and thus strengthening of the quality of democracy, and destructive tendencies including the growth of populism, radicalism, corruption, and hate speech. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]