DOI: 10.33917/es-2.168.2020.142-151

A few months after the fascist Germany’s attack on the USSR, under harsh wartime conditions, at the end of 1941 military industry of the Soviet Union began to produce such a quantity of military equipment that subsequently was providing not only replenishment of losses, but also improvement of technical equipment of the Red Army forces . Successful production of military equipment during World War II became one of the main factors in the victory over fascism. One of the unlit pages in affairs of the People’s Commissariat of Internal Affairs (NKVD) is displacement and evacuation of a huge number of enterprises and people to the east, beyond the Urals, which were occupied by German troops at the beginning of the war in the summer of 1941. All this was done according to the plans developed with direct participation of NKVD, which united before the beginning and during the war departments now called the Ministry of Internal Affairs, FSB, SVR, the Russian Guard, Ministry of Emergency Situations, FAPSI and several smaller ones. And all these NKVD structures during the war were headed by Lavrenty Pavlovich Beria

DOI: 10.33917/es-2.168.2020.5

Opening address of editor-in-chief

DOI: 10.33917/es-2.168.2020.134-141

The present article analyzes the experience of creation and functioning in the European Union of such supranational forms of business organization as European companies (SE) and European cooperative societies (SCE). The author considers the main stages of developing legislative acts regulating the activities of supranational business structures; requirements for such companies; procedure for their establishment; opportunities provided by supranational status. The data on activities of European companies and cooperative societies is summarized. Possibilities of implementing the experience of European companies in the EAEU are analyzed

DOI: 10.33917/es-2.168.2020.124-133

The article deals with various types of characteristics of society and its sphere of activity. Various types and groups of theories of society development are studied. It is revealed — what values are laid by scientific schools in the life of society. Global problems and contradictions, which are a brake and at the same time a stimulus for its development, are defined. The planetary scheme of interrelations and mutual influence of global risks for society is developed. The gradation of modern problems of society from risks with the indication of the main problems of social and economic character is carried out. The separate directions of development of society and tools which reduce emergence and development of risks for it are considered

DOI: 10.33917/es-2.168.2020.112-123

The purpose of the study is to determine the existing growth models of the countries of the Eurasian Union by GDP expenditures and sectors (manufacturing, transactional raw materials). The research methodology is a macroeconomic analysis of the dynamics of the main indicator of economic development — gross domestic product. The research method is a structural analysis that allows you to get a structural formula for calculating the contribution of each component of GDP to the growth rate, as well as a comparative analysis of the dynamics models of the countries in question — Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia. The result of the study is the obtained structural relationships that make it possible to measure the influence of the investment structure on the growth rate, the criteria describing economic growth with a corresponding change in the country’s national wealth, as well as the identification of models of economic dynamics by the countries of the Eurasian Union. It is indicative that the transaction sector dominates in Kazakhstan and Russia, while in other countries a mixed model is found, or industrial growth as in Belarus. According to the components of GDP and expenditures of the country, either a mixed or a consumer model is found (Kyrgyzstan, Russia), however, the contribution of government spending to the growth rate is provided only in Kazakhstan. It was also revealed that the reaction to the crisis of 2009 and 2015 was fundamentally different for the countries of the Eurasian Union. The search for the factor conditions of such a prevailing dynamics, as well as the influence of union economic relations on the formation of a growth model in each country, requires an expansion of research and an analytical perspective

DOI: 10.33917/es-2.168.2020.102-111

This article considers how to enhance the institutional structure of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) in order to enable timely decision-making and implementation of governance decisions in the interests of Eurasian integration deepening. We compare the governance structures of the EAEU and the European Union (EU) using the author’s technique and through the lens of theories of neofunctionalism and intergovernmentalism elaborated with respect to the EU. We propose to determine a major driver of the integration process at this stage (the College of the Eurasian Economic Commission or the EAEU member states), to reduce the number of decision-making bodies within the current institutional structure of the EAEU, and to divide clearly authority and competence of remaining bodies to exclude legal controversies in the EAEU

DOI: 10.33917/es-2.168.2020.96-101

Changing of a conjuncture index of “Economic strategy” (CIES) for 2019 is considered. The contribution of indicators of supply and demand in CIES is estimated. The analysis of industrial production is carried out