The collapse of the USSR pushed Ukraine for pursuing a policy aimed at expanding cooperation with Western countries. Ukraine placed great emphasis on economic cooperation with the EU and United States, as well as financial assistance from Western countries and international financial organizations, primarily the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Such interest in collaborating with the IMF was driven by the needs of the Ukrainian economy to solve current social and economic problems, maintain the political stability for the elites in power. The increased focus of the Ukrainian side on external financial assistance related to the Ukraine failure to address economic challenges, appeared after the collapse of the USSR, and initiate a new foreign economic policy. The inefficiency of the economy was aggravated by clear-cut governmental policy deficiency. At the same time, Ukraine continued to open up the country to Western capital. This weakened Ukraine’s position on world markets, negatively affected its economic potential. Hence, Ukraine went in for cooperation with the IMF to gain financial assistance and tackle its economic problems. On the other hand, the IMF showed great attention to Ukraine, granting funds to Ukraine as a part of cooperation programs but setting economic conditions and political demands. The ongoing borrowing policy has led to Ukraine foreign debt increase, triggering the dependence of the Ukrainian authorities on the IMF. In recent years, under the new President of Ukraine V. Zelensky, Ukraine has proceeded with the policy of cooperation with the IMF.

Due to climate change, the Arctic region becomes a place of geopolitical rivalry of both Arctic and non-Arctic states. Traditional formats for determining the agenda in the region are effective, but with the advent of the interest of an increasing number of international actors, these formats are transforming, which may affect the balance of power in the region. The growing activity of Asian countries in the Arctic, primarily China, is forcing regional states to make adjustments to the development strategy of the region. The rapid renewal of its potential in the northern territories of Russia caused a negative reaction from the western countries, especially after 2014.

Such aspirations have emerged as the internationalization of the region by Northern Europe and China, the desire to draw clear boundaries on the part of Russia and Canada, and the buildup of US influence on its colleagues in the North Atlantic bloc. This situation may cause an uncontrolled increase in tension in the region, especially if new alliances between the Arctic and non-Arctic countries are created. The author considers the current approaches of the countries of the Arctic five, analyzes the true motives of internationalization and the role of the format of the Arctic five in maintaining a balance of power and stability in the northern latitudes.

The phenomenon of «children’s» movements has historical analogs, which traditionally were the result of thoughtful technologies of adults, which were aimed at realizing their interests and achieving specific goals. The use of geopolitical and civilizational approaches has led to the consideration of the phenomenon of «children’s» eco-strikes as a political technology of the initiators of a New World Order. The genesis, essence and purpose of the «Greta Thunberg project» and mass environmental actions in the context of the formation of a New World Order and the interests of Russia have been characterized. It is shown that the initiators of this technology are the «old» globalist and neoliberal elites of Western states, part of the American establishment, international big capital and powerful corporations in the non-material digital sphere. To achieve their goals of neutralizing opponents in the economic and political spheres, they use the protest potential of the «greens», which over the past few decades have actually become part of the Western neoliberal elite. In the context of efforts to create a New World Order, these actors seek to maintain and strengthen their power, continue to exploit third world countries, suppress existing anti-system movements and weaken their main geopolitical competitors – mainly China and Russia, which are looking for safe transport routes and new sources of resources. Therefore, on the initiative of the globalist and neoliberal elites, projects are being put forward to create ecozones in resource-rich «disputed areas» and, as a result, to preserve the prospects for economic activity there. The image of «children’s» eco-strikes, which is presented by the media, reproduces a new social idea and stimulates support from the electorate for the purpose of the transformation of the World Order, which is confirmed by the fact that the movement is massive in various countries of the world. Youth strikes with environmental slogans help to shift the dominant positions from the traditional industrial-resource elite to the digital elite, opening up new financial and economic opportunities and prospects for global leadership for the latter. The intensification of this movement coincided in time with the USA claims to the Northern Sea Route and the development of Arctic resources, which directly affects the interests of Russia.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the new independent states of Central Asia had faced serious problems, such as the lack of experience in building state system, border demarcation, severe economic situation, threat of interethnic conflicts. However, that period was appropriate for integration initiatives in Central Asia. The economies of the post-Soviet republics in the region had been formed by the common Soviet system, the states depended from each other. In addition, the geopolitical situation in the region was favorable for rapprochement; Russia, China, the United States were not actively involved in regional processes. In the period from 1994 to 2005, the Central Asian republics initiated several integration projects, such as the Common economic space (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan), the Central Asian Economic Community (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan), the Central Asian Cooperation Organization (all republics of Central Asia, except Turkmenistan). It should be noted that the integration process in the region implied all republics of Central Asia, except Turkmenistan, which had been ignoring any initiatives of neighbor countries. These structures did not achieve their goal, such as the creation of a free trade zone as well as customs, currency and payment unions. After a prolonged period of integration initiatives, there were no real close relationships between the countries. The states still prefer to build their relations in a bilateral format. The article considers the reasons that prevent the Central Asian states from effectively pursuing a multilateral format of cooperation in the region. The main reasons that determine the unpreparedness of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan for cooperation in a multilateral format are identified. Attention has been paid to such factors as the collision of interests of outside players, leadership issues between Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, water distribution policy and cross-border cooperation. The steps that Central Asian countries need to take to establish effective multilateral cooperation in the region are analyzed.

In the shortlist of blueprint priority diseases of the World Health Organization for 2018, along with the famous and dangerous diseases, there is also a disease “X”. This is a designation of a disease, which may arise due to mutations, and lead to a new epidemic. COVID-19 became such disease. The disease is characterized by a long incubation period, during which it is already contagious, and the possibility of an asymptomatic course. These factors, as well as the unpreparedness of countries, determined its success. The causative agent of the disease - SARSCoV-2 appeared in China at the end of 2019. China has taken a series of tough measures using the armed forces to defeat the epidemic. All this helped China to get out of the epidemic as soon as possible and realize the opportunities provided by the situation. In the CIS, the government of each state has chosen one of three models for resolving the issue. Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan went the Chinese way and took tough quarantine measures. Most states of the Commonwealth have begun to gradually introduce restrictions, which could then lead to the reintroduction of quarantine after a short break. Belarus, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan gave preference to economic development, and therefore humanitarian factors faded into the background. The COVID-19 pandemic has increased the level of health literacy of the population and the value of medical supplies. Many people became familiar with the online entertainment industry, which paved the way for new content producers. Together with the transition of people to remote work, this has increased the demand for Internet traffic. Thoughts on the automation of production and courier services arose in society. These technologies will make the transfer to a post-industrial society possible, and the country that introduced them will be able to claim the title of a major player in the international arena. The COVID-19 pandemic has opened up new possibilities for a trade war that will lead to a strengthening of the regionalization process. This may provide an incentive for the development of regional integration associations. “Belt and Road” project runs the risk of suffering trade barriers and Western attempts to get rid of Chinese dependence, which the pandemic has demonstrated. The US sanctions policy can lead to the creation of financial systems without them, which has the potential to shake the Bretton Woods system.

The article examines the peculiarities of the economic situation and the potential for the development of regional integration of Russia and the CIS and EAEU countries. The complexity of the current economic downturn against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic and the turbulence of world energy markets has a mixed impact not only on the economic downturn in the countries of the region, but also on integration processes, their nature and development prospects. In this context, the study of a set of interrelated processes from the point of view of the formation of economic policies of countries, their foreign economic guidelines and goals is relevant. At the same time, the methodology for integrated assessment of the development potential of regional integration is based on the following assumptions: the need to coordinate and develop economic development strategies and geopolitical strategies; creating the attractiveness of the Russian economy as a core of integration; development of common energy markets as the basic platform for integration in the EAEU.

Five full years of the functioning of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) provide an opportunity to highlight the main trends of cooperation under this association and to summarize some of their results. The article discusses the trends and results of Kazakhstan’s foreign economic cooperation with the EAEU countries in the main areas, including mutual trade, mutual investments, as well as some others. The analysis revealed that in most areas of cooperation between Kazakhstan and the EAEU countries during the period of the union’s existence, leading dynamics were observed, which indicates the positive results for the national economy of the first five years of operation as part of the integration association.

After the collapse of the USSR, Central Asian countries faced a number of political and economic challenges. The most pressing issues were inter-State interaction in the energy sector and the pursuit of their independent energy policy. But the efforts of the countries to implement integration projects in the energy sector failed. The Central Asian states had twin economies and poorly developed infrastructure. The main obstacle for expanding energy cooperation of the countries in the region was their geographical remoteness from the major hydrocarbon resource consumers. Despite the difficulties, the countries pursued a policy aimed at attracting foreign investment in the development of deposits and implementation of pipeline projects. China and Western countries had great influence on the discussion and further implementation of a series of pipeline projects. Central Asia was of great importance for China which sought to strengthen its influence in the countries of the region but curtail Russia and Western countries’ influence. In this matter, China has made significant progress with the pipeline projects in the region. The EU and the US were also promoting energy projects. However, the remoteness of the countries from the European market for hydrocarbon resources precluded projects for oil and gas pipelines going from Central Asia to the west to be implemented. As a result, the Central Asian countries largely opt for China and Russia, as an important partner, in the implementation of their energy policy.

The article reveals the trend of mass loss of native speakers of the Russian language in post-Soviet Central Asia. Authors analyze the policies and objective trends in those states in detail, leading to the identified problem. The authors outline the growing trends in the replacement of the Russian language in domestic processes of communication with national languages, the diminishing role of the Russian language as an interstate intermediary language in Central Asia, as well as Russia’s reaction to these processes. Central Asia now show an increasing number of students learning other foreign languages such as Chinese, English and Turkish. As a result authors are forecasting the increase of external players influence. In addition, are analyzing political and social effects that are expected to arise as a result of the diminishing role of the Russian language in the region, including future occurrence of Russian-speakers’ enclaves and an outflow of the Russian-speaking population from these countries.

The article gives an analysis of Russia’s foreign policy in relation to the Baltic States from 1990 to 2019. The author identifies four main stages of its evolution. It is concluded that the main problems of the Russian-Baltic dialogue are discrimination of the Russian-speaking minority, issues of historical memory, a decrease of the Russian transit and security. The relations between Russia and the Baltic states has become conflict almost after dissolution of the USSR. However, in 1990-2000-ies, Russia still tried to formulate a positive agenda for the relations with the Baltics. The main motive of its strategy was to build trust and political relations on the basis of economic cooperation and civil society. Since 1990-s Russia has been developing cross-border cooperation programs. Since late 2000-s Russia has been also developing cross-border programs with the EU. However, Russia’s hopes were not justified. Its relations with Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania have worsened since 2014 after the Ukrainian conflict. Prospects for their improvement are still unclear. The author comes to the conclusion that Russia is “tired” from the Baltic States. Despite the fact that Russia has been systematically transforming its foreign policy after the dissolution of the USSR, it has not fully achieved its goals. There is still discrimination of the Russian minority. Russia and the Baltics have not come to a single interpretation of the Second World War history. Political contradictions prevail over economic ties. Despite the growing estrangement between Russia and the Baltic States, Russia keeps developing them concentrating on trans-border and civil society cooperation. Such relations are non-political and they are focused on solving specific problems.