The modern world has entered into the epoch of militant postmodernism, when it is considered normal, and even “comme il faut”, to criticize (including disparagingly) the traditions of peoples and states that have lasted centuries for centuries, based on solid spiritual and moral principles. Instead, attempts are made to create certain supposedly “universal” concepts and ideas, the main unifying feature of which seems to be an intention to destroy historically formed foundations of the socio-political and cultural development of countries and peoples. At the same time, many postmodern ersatz-spiritual principles and ideas live very briefly (for they do not have and cannot have a firm basis), being replaced by new ones, even more aggressive and aimed at discrediting (especially among the youth) traditions. Special role in developing all elements of the historical triad — spiritual, intellectual and moral regeneration of society — is played by the factor of military traditions and profound comprehension of Russian military history. Let us try to focus on this factor disclosure and its significance.
Till now, among historians (especially among those comparing the military and economic potentials of Hitler’s Germany and the USSR), is very popular the opinion that Nazi aggression against the Soviet Union was rather adventurous. However, this opinion will change if we consider preparation and activities not only of the Wehrmacht, but also of other institutions of the Nazi dictatorship.
This article summarizes the results of the International Youth Forum “Future of Eurasian and European Integration: Foresight — 2040”, regarding the economic integration within the European, Eurasian and Asian space. The high interdependence of European and Eurasian markets especially, make strong social and political relations essential in achieving long run economic development, growth and stability in the region. Consequently, this report proposes a C3 strategy encompassing the ideals of Cooperation, Compatibility and Competition in encouraging and facilitating the exchange of goods and services across the EU-EAEU and Asia (China). Specifically, it highlights four main sectors — Transport and Infrastructure, Finance, Technology and Energy through which the C3 strategy could potentially increase economic integration in the EU-EAEU and Asian space by 2040.
Russia’s chairmanship in the Eurasian Economic Union in 2018 allows us to formulate and bring to a wide discussion a set of initiatives aimed at strengthening the integration association and completing the lost links of the integration agenda. As the practice of EAEU functioning in conditions of external constraints and the lack of clearly articulated joint development priorities has shown, the Union needs to specify the goals and to reinforce pragmatic aspirations of the member states with serious research and practical work to update the joint cultural, historical and spiritual heritage of the peoples of Eurasia. In other words, it is necessary to give a new impetus to the Eurasian Union, which should become a competitive economic union of states that have a common picture of the world, a single system of conceptions and values. The network of scientific and educational institutions of the EAEU member states has become one of these bases cementing the common economic whole, which, if properly organized, can turn into a self-sufficient profitable industry, whose product (modern knowledge) can be successfully exported to third countries, increasing the prestige and capitalization of the union, as well as strengthening Russia’s foreign policy positions. To this end, it is necessary right now to take active steps towards growing clusters of science and education on the basis of exchanging best experience and practices between the profile institutions of the Union’s countries, to raise the bar of qualification requirements for all participants in the Eurasian scientific and educational exchange. The article proposes the approach outlines for the all-round stimulation of cooperation in this sphere with the aim of both self-sufficient provision of integration processes with modern personnel and for the outside supply.
“Cultural policy in the state” is a concept broader than the “cultural policy of the state”. All social groups without exception, large and small, privileged and discriminated, form their own cultural policy; each of us pursues his small personal cultural policy. This policy can be more or less conscious, more or less effective, but in any case it follows the rules of the so-called non-classical rationality, long ago and well studied.
The basic foundation for successful development of our country is the Russians’ desire to live in peace and harmony, good-neighborliness and harmony. We, the population of Russia, of different ages and nationalities, beliefs and creeds, representing different social groups, are the people with common roots and common future. “Neither geopolitical pressure nor sanctions have been able to shake the unity of the Russian people, its striving for truth and justice. It is obvious that the unity of the Russian civil nation is not a myth, but a reality”, said the Doctor of Economic Sciences, Professor Aslambek Baskluyevich Paskachev, member of the Presidium of the Presidential Council for Interethnic Relations, chairman of the Commission of the said Council on Migration Issues and Social-cultural adaptation of foreign citizens, director of the ANO “Institute of Migration and Interethnic Relations”, chairman of the Supreme Council of the “Russian Congress of the Caucasus Peoples”, member of the Central Staff of the All-Russia People’s Front in his interview with the “ES” magazine. This important conversation about achievements in the sphere of interethnic relations, about peculiarities of the national and migration policy in modern Russia, about responsibility of each of us for the future of our common homeland opens a series of interviews within the framework of the partner support of the project “Actualizing the heritage of Russian integration of peoples and cultures in the format of modern Russia’s “soft power” in the Eurasian space”.
Trans-Asian geo-project of Russia’s transport domination at sea and on land is proposed to be considered as a global Russia’s counteraction to threats in accordance with time and space. Its business content is focused on transformation of Eurasia with the help of “soft power”: through construction of facilities that will improve the life quality of population in Russia and its partner countries. The article outlines approaches to organizing “general cleaning” of the territory for cooperation between historically friendly countries of the Middle Eurasia. The essence of improving the territory between the Kara Sea and the Persian Gulf with the innovative transport infrastructure is to ensure transport domination of Russia both on the sea and the continent, expansion of its economic space. It provides a stable source of acquiring large-scale benefits and advantages for Russians and the country as a whole for many years to come. Without Trans-Asian Corridor of Development prosperity of EAEU, SCO and BRICS will be inadequate.
Global Value Chains (GVCs) are currently the main theoretical concept for analyzing globalization processes in the sphere of industrial production and the object for perfecting the foreign economic policy of each country. Traditions and schools of studying GVCs, that have developed in the world community, can be divided into macrostructural, united under the general title of “internationalism”, and cluster ones, that are forming the “industrialism” trend. Referring to the problem of Russian-Belarusian industrial cooperation in the course of neoindustrialization and formation of new GVCs, macrostructural approach turns out to be completely unproductive for a number of reasons, therefore the authors of the article, considering the programs of Russian-Belarusian cooperation, follow the cluster approach.