The article analyzes “soft power” as an instrument for implementing foreign policy strategy in modern conditions; a comparative analysis of the impact of the “soft power” components on the electorate is made; the author analyzes opposite directions of the goal-setting vectors of “soft power” in conditions of total globalization and transition to multipolarity; it is stated that polycentrism determines the self-identification of societies and realization of national interests, the existence and development of historical, linguistic, traditional cultural and ethnic characteristics of nations and peoples, as well as the role of the state as an institution, maintaining social justice, which gives a definite specificity to the mechanism of implementing the “soft power” policy; the article also reflects the increasing role of information space in the context of globalization.
The article presents various types and structures of social formations. Сivilizational and formational approaches are considered, their comparative analysis is given. The author presents classification structure of civilizations and the place of human values with elements of civilization. He also deals with issues of interrelations, mutual influence and interaction of civilizations with regard to present-day problems of society and communities. The levels and forms of civilizations interaction are compared taking into account the processes of globalization, glocalization and humanization. The function of compatibility and interaction of factors of civilizations general development is formulated.
The article analyzes the philosophy of space and time attempting to show the difference in approaches to the problem of time among Western and Russian philosophers. Western philosophy sought to understand time through psychologism. The extreme expression of the Western psychological are manifest in the concepts developed by St. Augustine and Kant. Augustine believed that time exists only in the human soul, while Kant believed that time and space are forms of perception of reality that cannot fully be grasped. Russian philosophy, in contrast, has aspired to ontologism. In the 20th century the Eurasians conceived of an original concept of a transformed ontology, thus creating their own version of a philosophy of space and time. This outlook had direct links to the discovery of quantum physics. Pyotor Savitsky believed that time absorbs and releases energy and that energy triggers the process of history. Based on this concept of energy, Lev Gumilev developed a historical concept and theory of ethnogenesis, the formation of national identity.
The reality of international relations is such that the modern Eurasian integration project is primarily the interaction of information and communication spaces and elaboration of a common value-based worldview in key areas. In this context, formation of Russia’s positive image in conditions of international turbulence and transformation of the global order is becoming an important foreign policy task. The prospects for development and practical application of public diplomacy in the Eurasian space depend on two fundamentally important circumstances: first of all, on expansion of the subject dialogue, involvement in it of increasingly specific and even delicate issues of Eurasian integration rapprochement, and secondly, on creation of a system of multilateral dialogue sites with participation of the state and non-state actors not only from the EAEU countries, but also of their regional environment. In his interview with Larisa Polkovnikova the Deputy Executive Director of the Alexander Gorchakov Public Diplomacy Fund, executive director of the Primakov Center for Foreign Policy Cooperation Roman Nikolaevich Grishenin told about the need for developing a strategic initiative in this context and about the integration resources of the civil society.
This article discusses the role of the Eurasian idea in the modern concept of branding Russia in the context of new challenges of information war. The author emphasizes that in the Eurasian image concept of Russia has a high symbolic capital of culture, the potential of “soft power”, as it creates an understandable and positive image of Russia’s unifying mission in the expanses of Eurasia, puts forward the idea of a political dialogue of Eurasian peoples, in which Russia plays the role of symbolic cultural, a political and geopolitical bridge between East and West. This noble peacekeeping and unification mission of Russia-Eurasia can be a worthy response of our country to the contemporary challenges of information warfare.
The author outlines that the information field, being expanded on the basis of modern high technologies, was imbued with the symbolic capital of the Russian culture, uniting multifaceted and multifunctional efforts of the participants.
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.