Russia and non-regional States have recently shown fresh interest in the countries of the former Soviet Union. The rivalry between Russia and the United States for the post-Soviet territory, beginning after the collapse of the USSR, has broken new ground. Russia considers the post-Soviet space as an area of vital interests. Economic and political relations with its neighbors, the internal political situation in the former Soviet Republics have a direct impact on the development of Russia. These determinants can explain the renewed interest in Eurasian integration and an integration project — the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). However, the USA hardly welcomes such aspirations of Russia and the support for the integration project on the part of some post-Soviet countries. The American side has no interest in the newly emerging regional centers of influence in the post-Soviet space, regarding this as a threat to its interests. Countering the development of Eurasian integration and strengthening the EAEU influence is the focus of US policy in this regard. The EAEU member countries are consistently taking steps to develop integration despite obstacles from the West. The long-term objectives, defined in various documents by the countries, should put them on a new path of economic cooperation. Eurasian integration faces a number of difficulties along with the successes, achieved since the creation of the EAEU. The world economy problems, in addition to internal ones, exert a considerable influence. They intensified after the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic, which negatively affected the development of the EAEU countries. The internal political problems faced by the EAEU countries adversely affect integration. The internal political crisis in Belarus, beginning in the later 2020, the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan in Nagorno-Karabakh, worsened internal political struggle in Armenia and Kyrgyzstan are the factors that influenced the work of the EAEU last year and early 2021. Nevertheless, economic difficulties and political events in specific countries, the pursuit of non-regional states to influence the elites of the former Soviet states have not altered the foreign policy priorities of the EAEU member states.

The development of Russian-Georgian relations is determined by both long-term factors and situational circumstances. The former include disagreements between the two countries over security in Transcaucasia: the status of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and the attitude toward NATO activity in the region. Another persistent factor concerns the debate over interaction with Russia in Georgia’s domestic politics. These factors limit the possibilities for expanding bilateral ties. Situational constraints include such phenomena as the COVID-19 pandemic or the domestic political crisis in Georgia after the 2020 parliamentary elections. Taken together, the longterm and situational factors set the general tone for bilateral relations, which are characterized by predictability and low dynamics. Despite the existing limitations, Russian-Georgian cooperation holds promise in areas of trade and societal contacts.

The article examines the historical prerequisites for the formation of the ideology of Ukrainian nationalism, analyzes its main provisions, and its impact on the foreign and domestic policy of the independent Ukrainian state. The Ukrainian national idea was formed in the late 19th first half of the 20th century. It was based on three fundamental provisions: the Russian state is the enemy of Ukrainian independence and therefore in the interests of Ukraine its weakening, and even better disintegration; the Russian population in Ukraine is a very serious obstacle to the formation of an independent Ukrainian state, and therefore it should be assimilated; the independence of the Ukrainian state can be guaranteed only by close cooperation with European countries, which will help it in defending its independence in the confrontation with “Asian” Russia, as Ukraine is a European country, part of Europe. On the basis of these ideological provisions it was supposed to form a Ukrainian identity. As the article emphasizes, the national Ukrainian idea in this form contains a very large charge of conflict with Russia, inevitably leads to a clash of their geopolitical interests. The proclamation of Ukraine’s independence in 1991 meant the emergence of a second Russian state, whose population had to be transformed into a Ukrainian nation. The ruling political elite of the country with the support of the Ukrainian intelligentsia as the ideological basis for the construction of the Ukrainian nation state and the Ukrainian nation adopted the basic tenets of the Ukrainian national idea, which was formed in the first half of the 20th century and put them at the basis of its foreign and domestic policy. All Ukrainian Presidents, though with varying degrees of determination and consistency, implemented them. Kiev’s policy of strengthening the country’s independence implied independence from Russia, which is seen as the main threat to the national security of the young Ukrainian state. The article states that the presidential elections of 2019 and the defeat of P. Poroshenko showed that the majority of Ukrainian society does not accept such an identity. They need an identity on other principles, which in Ukraine have not yet developed and are not visible. So far, there are no political forces, political party, that could formulate them and put them in the basis of statehood and nation-building. The current President V. Zelensky in his policy is guided by old ideas and visions. After the collapse of the Soviet Union and the formation of the New Independent States, Russia did not immediately realize the scale of the challenges and threats to the country’s security from Ukraine. Sobering occurred under the influence of the “Orange Revolution”, when Kiev abandoned the policy of multivectors and began to pursue a pronounced pro-Western policy. At the same time, Moscow begins to realize that it will not be able to enter the community of democratic states on its own terms, and begins to position itself as an independent center of power, opposing the West. Strengthening its positions in this confrontation, it connects with the consolidation of the post-Soviet states around itself within the framework of integration projects, first EvrAzES, and then the EAEU. Moscow linked their successful implementation with Ukraine’s participation in their implementation, because it believed that without it these projects would not be effective. However, Kiev did not want to support these plans, focusing “on entering Europe”. According to the author, from that moment the foreign policy strategies of both countries began to differ in principle and the two countries from strategic partners turned into geopolitical rivals. The West supported Kiev in its pro-Western foreign policy, considering it as an element of deterrence of Russia’s great-power ambitions. Both Moscow and the West tried to drag Kiev to their side. The coup d’etat carried out by nationalist forces in Kiev in February 2014 seemed to mean the West’s victory in this peculiar tug-of-war. In response, Moscow annexed Crimea and supported the struggle of the self-proclaimed DPR and LPR against the Kiev government. As a result, Ukraine has embarked on a tough confrontation with Russia, seeing it as an aggressor and an enemy. The author of the article comes to the conclusion, that overcoming the confrontation between them will take a lot of time and effort and for the foreseeable historical perspective the relations between them will be based on the principles of the zero-sum game. In these circumstances, there is no need to talk about partnership and cooperation, as it is a question of relations between two hostile States. The most that can be expected is to maintain a “cold peace” between them. But such a state can be achieved only if relations between Russia and the West are normalized, and a new Cold War is eliminated.

The article examines the development of the US Arctic policy which is reflected in the US strategic documents. The author examines the evolution of doctrinal purposes from those focusing on environmental issues and regional cooperation to those focusing on logistics, security and military infrastructure. The evolution of the US strategic documents is considered in the context of the activities of such actors as Russia, Canada, China and a number of international organizations in the Arctic region. Contradictions and existing and prospective areas of cooperation are noted. The author shows the immutability of the US key strategic guidelines of the United States aimed at securing the status of an Arctic power for the United States and ensuring the promotion and protection of the US interests in the region.

The article examines the features of the US foreign policy towards the Central Asian states in the post-bipolar period. The imperatives and constants, as well as the transformation of Washington’s Central Asian policy, have been characterized. It is shown that five Central Asian states have been in the focus of American foreign policy over the past thirty years. In the process of shaping the US foreign policy in Central Asia, the presence of significant reserves of energy and mineral resources in the region was of great importance. Therefore, rivalry for Caspian energy resources and their transportation routes came to the fore. In addition to diversifying transport and logistics flows and supporting American companies, the US energy policy in Central Asia was aimed at preventing the restoration of Russia’s economic and political influence, as well as countering the penetration of China, which is interested in economic cooperation with the countries of the region. During the period under review, the following transformation of mechanisms and means of Washington’s policy in the Central Asian direction was observed: the policy of “exporting democracy”; attempts to “nurture” the pro-American elite; striving to divide states into separate groups with permanent “appointment” of leaders; involvement in a unified military system to combat terrorism; impact on the consciousness of the population in order to destabilize geopolitical rivals; building cooperation on a pragmatic basis due to internal difficulties and external constraints. Central Asian states sympathized with the American course because of their interest in technology and investment. At the same time, these states in every possible way distanced themselves from the impulses of “democratization” from Washington. Kazakhstan was a permanent regional ally of the United States, to which Uzbekistan was striving to join. The second echelon in relations with the American side was occupied by Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Turkmenistan. A feature of the positions of the Central Asian countries is the maximum benefit from cooperation with Washington while building good-neighborly relations with Russia and China, which is in dissonance with the regional imperatives of the United States. In the future, the American strategy in Central Asia will presumably proceed from the expediency of attracting regional allies and stimulating contradictions in order to contain geopolitical rivals in the region.

The article examines the U.S. foreign policy in the South Caucasus at the present stage. Its main directions and features are highlighted. The article lays down the chronology of bilateral relations in the economic and military fields, as well as the U.S. policy of “democracy promotion” in the region. The current state of relations between the United States and the states of the South Caucasus is analyzed. The focus is on the policy of the Donald Trump administration in the region, as well as on the prospects of its implementation under the new Joe Biden administration.

This article focuses on the impact of the pandemic coronavirus (COVID-19) on Sino-US relations. It describes Sino-US relations before and after the outbreak of the coronavirus pandemic. Particular attention is paid to the ongoing trade war between the PRC and the US, as well as the development of the information war caused by the politicization of the epidemic. The reasons for the deterioration of Sino-US relations under the influence of the coronavirus are considered. The author highlighted the following factors: US fears about the transition of world economic and political leadership from Washington to Beijing; the disagreement between China and the United States over the anti-epidemic in the framework of multilateral cooperation; problems caused by objectively accelerated changes in the world order. It is concluded that the epidemic plays a limited role in the deterioration of economic and political relations between China and the US. The fundamental reason remains the discrepancy between the unilateralism advocated by the US and multilateralism called for by China.

The Asia-Pacific region today represents an example of deep regional economic integration. This was largely facilitated by the creation of the TRANS-Pacific Partnership. The undisputed advantages of the Trans-Pacific Partnership are the following: opening markets to all member countries, unifying trade rules, removing obstacles to financial cooperation, creating a favorable investment climate and new guarantees to protect small and medium-sized businesses. The analysis of historical stages of creation and development of a such kind of regional association allows us to trace the evolution of economic integration processes and assess the effectiveness and attractiveness of this type of integration. The study of the specifics of the origin of such a large integration Association in Asia is of interest from the point of view of searching for new “growth points” for integration associations in the Eurasian region and in particular in the post-Soviet space.

The paper focuses on a comparative analysis of the approaches to interregional cooperation used by two Spanish regions: the Basque Country and Catalonia. The main strategic documents which set the goals, tasks and directions of the autonomous regions in interregional cooperation are considered. Factors that shape the principles of the regions in developing interregional links are described. Spanish legislation which lays foundation for interregional action of the Basque Country and Catalonia is reviewed. Particular attention is paid to the key vectors of partnership between the Spanish and French territories in the framework of two Euroregions: New Aquitaine-Basque Country-Navarre and Pyrenees-Mediterranean. In addition, the main tasks stipulated in the Programme of the Catalan Presidency in the interregional association the Four Motors for Europe are examined. Furthermore, the paper identifies the role of the 17 UN Sustainable Development Goals in the hierarchy of priorities for interregional action in both regions. As a result of the research, similarities and differences in the approaches to interregional cooperation used by the Basque Country and Catalonia are underscored.

Kazakhstan, like most of the multi-ethnic post-Soviet states, in the course of state building, faced the problem of rallying the peoples living in the Republic. Two interrelated projects were being implemented on the political agenda of Kazakhstan: the construction of state institutions and the formation of a civil nation. In a multi-ethnic state, the project of a civil nation is difficult due to the attempts of the titular ethnic group to obtain additional advantages, which causes tension in interethnic relations. The identification of the population, often, occurs by ethnicity, therefore, the policy of civic identity in Kazakhstan is opposed to the “Kazakhization” of language, culture, and social practices. Nevertheless, the process of unification of the nation is successfully developing in the Republic, initiated by the political elite of Kazakhstan. Achievement of national unity was declared a strategic priority in the development of the country. The article analyzes the factors affecting collective identity in the Republic of Kazakhstan: demographic diversity, language policy, state symbols. The article concludes that Kazakhstan is building its statehood based on the domination of the Kazakh ethnic elite, while pursuing a policy of uniting different ethnic groups into a single Kazakh nation.

This article deals with a system of a humanitarian policy of Russia in accordance with the documents of strategic planning. Different interpretations of the definition “humanitarian policy” are considered, which are taken from official documents, official speeches as well as from expert community. There is also a comparison of the Russian and Western interpretation of the definition of “humanitarian”. The article touches upon concept of “Soft power” because this term is closely relative to the humanitarian sphere in Russian strategic documents. The activities of the Russian organizations in the humanitarian field are examined on the basis of their strategic documents. This article seeks to determine whether the modern system of the Russian humanitarian policy is a suitable tool for the implementation of its objectives.

The article provides a retrospective analysis of the development of political relations between Japan and Russia from the middle of the XIX century to the present. The international relations have a nearly three-hundred-year history that reflects various periods of recession and recovery, stability and tension. There was and is a diplomatic struggle of states for financial strength, influence on the world stage, standing up for the national interests in the territorial issue, etc. But despite such moments, these relations did not go beyond the boundaries of “peaceful”. Russia and Japan, as strong players in the Pacific region, have always understood the need for cooperation and have looked for it in political, economic and cultural formats. At the present stage relations between Japan and Russia include different areas: security, economy, culture, science. But the unsigned amicable agreement, which has been delayed for more than 70 years, does not provide ample opportunities for further development of productive mutually beneficial relations. Through the “prehistory” of modern bilateral relations between Russia and Japan, the sequence and nature of relations between the countries is determined. The key aspect that determines the sequence and nature of relations between countries is the historical connection. The material of the article is ranked by time periods (stages), the factors that influenced each of the stages are investigated, and the main problems of the relationships are determined. Special emphasis is placed on the problems of our times, in particular the territorial issue of the Southern Kuril Islands, which were formed historically. Today the relations are based on solving common problems in the economy, security and energy. Within the framework of common interests Japan and Russia are seeking to resolve a long-running dispute. Thus, the article consistently reveals the “prehistory” and the nature of modern bilateral relations. The stages and factors that influenced each of the stages are studied, the corresponding conclusions and forecasts are made.