Suchergebnisse

The article analyzes the significance of Eurasian ideology for modern economic integration, the reasons for its limited use in the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), and the possibilities and prospects of adapting Eurasianism for the purposes of economic development and integration. Many international economic integration associations (e.g., the EU, USMCA, ASEAN) have a common or similar ideological and value-based foundation, which ensures stronger integration. The EAEU was initially established without a common, integrating ideological basis, although the first president of Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev, suggested using Eurasianism as the ideology of integration. Sergey Glazyev also wrote about the importance of integrative ideology for the development of the EAEU. However, these attempts to introduce Eurasian ideology for a stronger integration were not supported by the rest of the EAEU countries. This was largely because most EAEU members, including Russia, were driven by short-term economic interests, forgetting about more important long-term, strategic goals. Moreover, there are important ideological divisions in society and in the political elites of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and Kyrgyzstan - primarily the division between adherents of the ideology and practices of Western liberalism, oriented toward EU integration, and supporters of an ideology close to Eurasianism and defense of traditional values, oriented toward the development of integration in the Eurasian space. The reproduction of such divisions in the EAEU countries, as well as the absence or weak development of an integrative ideology, largely determines the inconsistent and not always effective integration in the EAEU. Eurasianism can become an integrative ideology, which, if developed and adapted to modern realities, can ensure a stronger economic integration. This requires overcoming illusions about the possibility of integration of Russia and other post-Soviet countries into the EU, pursuing an active information policy in the Eurasian countries, showing the commonality of geopolitical and economic interests of EAEU countries and the opposition of these interests to those of the USA. Eurasianism can effectively counter the threat of ethnic nationalism in the EAEU countries by emphasizing Eurasian integration as a necessary condition for preserving the sovereignty of Eurasian countries, their traditional values, and the combination of tradition and innovation.

The article examines the main civilisational features of the development of Russia and their role in the modern socio-political transformations of Russian society. These features, according to the author, include the leading role of the state in the implementation of development projects and resource mobilisation; uneven socio-political development in time and space (development of society by impulses and jerks); combination in social dynamics of numerous opposite tendencies; periodic change of cultural and geopolitical vectors of development, caused by social delimitation and divisions. Arguments are given in favour of the fact that many of these features of the development of Russian society are due to the special, intermediate geographical, geopolitical and cultural-civilisational position of Russia between the civilisations of the West and the East. The author proves that a simple, uncritical borrowing and copying of Western political institutions without reformatting and adapting them to the conditions of modern Russia will either lead to a decrease in the effectiveness of these institutions, or to their serious degeneration and change. It is concluded that in the development and implementation of any projects of socio-political and economic development, it is essential to take into account both the general civilisational features of Russia and the internal Russian regional, local specifics, local socio-cultural norms and traditions, since their ignoring can lead to breaking the main social, cultural and value structures of Russian society.In addition, in modern conditions of global socio-political transformations and the numerous challenges associated with them it is extremely important for successful socio-political development to organically combine traditions with the necessary social innovations. However, as shown in the article, at present in Russia there is no such organic combination, and this seriously hinders socio-economic and cultural development. This implies the need to combine centralised planning and the development of federal development projects with the initiatives and proposals of local and regional communities, to focus not only on regional and local bureaucratic structures, but also on initiatives coming "from below" from groups of active citizens, from public organisations, volunteers and others. The author comes to the conclusion that this is especially important in the situation of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the crisis socio-economic and political phenomena caused by it.

A comparative analysis of alternative scenarios for the formation of a new world order is presented. It is shown that in the early 2020s the former "monocentric" ("unipolar") world order was destabilized. The main signs of the shifts taking place in it are socio-economic and political oppositions in Western and non-Western countries, the chaotic system of international relations, the increasing number and depth of regional conflicts, the creation of new international associations and coalitions. The forecast is made about the most probable variant of the change of the world order, which can come into being in the period of the 2020-2030s. An assumption has been made of the role of Russia in the changing world order.