Suchergebnisse

Nowadays Islam takes the stage of recovery associated with the peculiar issues associated with the Muslim society. These characteristics are expressed in the spread of ideas of Islamic fundamentalism and its supporters' confrontation with the rest of the world. This process has affected the Russian Muslims as well, the trend developed after the collapse of the Soviet Union when the post soviet muslims began to realize themselves as part of one of the Muslim Ummah, coming into conflict with the secular law of the Russian Federation. After the Soviet Union's disintegration, the radical Islamic ideas have begun to appear in Russia, in the conditions of the growth of nationalism these thoughts found a fertile ground. One of these ideas was associated with the construction of Sharia state in the Muslim autonomous republics of the Russian Federation and their subsequent withdrawal from Russian's membership. The situation for the Russian state in the Muslim republics aggravated the war in Chechnya. Through Chechnya mercenaries from Arab countries started to penetrate to the Russian territory, they also brought the money for the destabilization of the internal situation in Russia. Nevertheless, separatism did not find the mass support in neighboring regions such as Dagestan, Kabardino-Balkaria, Karachay-Cherkessia and Ingushetia. It is evidently that international Jihad ideas were supported financially from abroad. The issue of funding is a key part of the development of Islamic fundamentalism in Russia, the international Islamic funds and organizations gave huge financial assistance to them. At the present moment Russian authorities lead a fruitful and a successful fight against terrorism. In the future, after the completion of the antiterrorist operation in the Middle East hundreds of terrorists may return to Russia with huge experience that can threaten the security of the Russian state.

The article is devoted to an urgent problem dealing with the cooperation of the Turkish Republic and Azerbaijan Republic in the military sphere at the end of 20th – the beginning of 21st century. For Azerbaijan' s leaders Turkey has always been a special partner. This statement has an explanation. Ankara was the first state, which recognized the independence of Azerbaijan Republic. Moreover, Turkish government made great efforts to strengthen new state in different spheres. Military ties were one of the most important for both sides.
The cooperation between two states in the military sphere can be subdivided into several periods. The article gives the detailed analysis of normative documents concluded by the Republics' governments. The first period of military contacts (1990s) was the time of Turkish educational support. Ankara provided training assistance to the military forces of Azerbaijan. Military staff was restrained by Turkish instructors. Special uniform, armament and other equipment to make transformation was given to Baku by Turkish partners. Step by step, Azerbaijan' s military sphere was moving to Western standards. The year 1999 has become an important period for the military relations of Ankara and Baku. Since this year the military cooperation has extended and intensified, it is possible to name it as a new period of states' military collaboration. Turkish government gave financial aid to Ministry of Defense of Republic of Azerbaijan, provided the material and technical support to Baku for improving long-term military cooperation. In 2010 the Turkey-Azerbaijan Strategic Partnership Agreement was signed. It should be noticed that Baku refused to sign the agreement of Azerbaijan's participation in Collective security treaty organization, leaving the block of CSTO states headed by the Russian Federation. It's possible to say about the strengthening of the Baku-Ankara alliance. This action may lead to complication of Baku-Moscow relations and destabilize mutual relations. Mutual military ties between two Turkish states are shown in the context of Russia's interests in the region.

Introduction. Public diplomacy is an effective foreign policy instrument of the state. Public diplomacy is understood as the activity of an actor aimed at achieving foreign policy objectives by establishing and deepening long-term interstate relations. The purpose of such activities is to inform foreign audiences as well as broadcast the principles of national policy beyond the borders of one's own state. Public diplomacy is designed to influence those who have the opportunity to shape public belief systems. Methods and materials. The methodological basis of the study was a transnational approach, which allows us to reveal the role of state and non-state actors in international relations. The work uses a systematic approach in order to form a holistic view of American public diplomacy as an instrument of "soft power." To identify the individual tools used by the United States in promoting public diplomacy in each individual Central Asian country, a comparative method was used. Analysis and results. Public diplomacy seems to be an important tool of the American administration in the most important foreign policy areas. The priority instrument of US public diplomacy in the Central Asian region is the support of civil society and non-profit organizations. Using grant support mechanisms, the role of public organizations is strengthened, and dialogue between civil society and government authorities is encouraged in the formation and development of socio-economic policy. The second relevant tool is media support and working with information consumers among various segments of the population. According to the results of the study, it was revealed that these projects were most effectively implemented in Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and Tajikistan. The third most successful tool is education, whose work is based on grant programs both in the republics and in the United States. Systematic work carried out, taking into account a deep understanding of the internal processes in the Central Asian republics as well as the active use of public diplomacy tools, allows the United States to strengthen its foreign policy potential in the region.

Introduction. The contemporary university in the conditions of globalization has enriched its traditional functions to educate and create new elites with attracting not only domestic students but also the foreign youth to the educational and research process. In some cases it can maintain public diplomacy held by the domestic government still influencing it via the requests made by research professionals. This influence may come through the collision of interests of both researchers with students and the government. A Russian university represents mainly the government, that's why it's important to discover its role in public diplomacy. Methods and materials. The neoliberal approach to J. Nye's concept of "soft power" gives the possibility to consider the university as a public institute enriching state's soft power through public diplomacy. Official speeches of Russian government representatives, publications of Russian researchers, university web-sites give the ground to understand the Russian approach to the methods of public diplomacy. Analysis. First of all, it's important to reveal the ways to interpret the word combination "public diplomacy" in Russian. There are several possible terms: "publichnaya", "obshchestvennaya" , "narodnaya" diplomacy. The ways to use the word show different gradations of its meaning in research and political discourses which determine possible actors of public diplomacy in the Russian language. However, Russian officials in contrast to Russian researchers accept the term "obshchestvennaya" to describe the activity of government institutions in public diplomacy. That's why a university can be considered as an actor of "obshchestvennaya" diplomacy. Secondly, we reveal the ways to implement public diplomacy by Volgograd State University as one of regional universities. Results. Russian researchers following the English-language studies differentiate the concepts of "obshchestvennaya" and "publichnaya" (public) diplomacy according to the actors that implement this policy: the state cannot implement "obshchestvennaya" diplomacy, because it is a prerogative of social movements or non-governmental organizations (NGOs). At the same time, the concept of public diplomacy covers both the work of NGOs and the work of the state in creating its favorable image. However, Russian officials, trying to avoid the use of the Russian term "public diplomacy" incorrectly sounding in Russian, give preference to the phrase "obshchestvennaya diplomacy", implying that NGOs carry out public diplomacy with the help and on the initiative of the state. Moreover, they are not only public organizations who can conduct policies in this area. In other words, officials suppose that in comparison with research discourse, the circle of participants in "obshchestvennaya" diplomacy enlarges at the expense of state funds and platforms. Thus, a university that implements educational, research and publishing projects is involved in "obshchestvennaya" diplomacy. The position of the university in society, the authority of specialists whom it manages to attract, their international activity provide the soft power of the state.

Introduction. The article examines the development of the nuclear industry and the successes of the State Corporation "Rosatom" which allows Russia not only to ensure the growth of this important sector of industry and economy, but also to occupy a leading position in the world nuclear energy markets. In addition to the economic effect, this direction of state activity allows solving a wide range of foreign policy tasks. The article analyzes how the Russian state, using the potential of its nuclear industry and its competitive advantages, simultaneously realizes its interests in the Middle East. Methods and materials. During preparing the article, the authors used a synthesis of institutional and systemic approaches, a comparative historical approach, research in the development of diplomacy and the balance of "powers" in the foreign policy of the state, as well as predictive analysis within the problem field of the implementation of the foreign policy instrument under consideration. Analysis. At present, state corporation Rosatom is one of the leaders in the global nuclear industry and is implementing projects for the construction of 35 power units around the world, including the Middle East. Nuclear energy programs are currently planned or are under way in six countries in the region. Of the projects noted, Rosatom has firm agreements with Egypt, Iran and Turkey. Also, the Russian leadership is optimistic about the possibility of concluding contracts for the construction of nuclear power plants in Jordan and Saudi Arabia. The competitive advantages of a Russian company have a wide range from technological advantages to the most flexible terms of cooperation, regardless of the foreign policy and global conjuncture. At the same time, the activities of Rosatom are converted into political advantages that ensure the strengthening of Russia's influence in the Middle East region. Discussion. The authors assess the further development of the Middle East programs for the development of the peaceful atom, Russia's participation in these processes, as well as the identification of associated risks. Results. The authors conclude that by using and developing nuclear energy, Russia is promoting its national interests in the context of the continuing negative economic and political background in the world. The country's leading positions in this industry make it possible to build favorable forecasts regarding the application of nuclear energy in the field of foreign policy, including the Middle East, where Russia has many competitive advantages. Authors' contribution. D.A. Mirgorod developed the content of the article and carried out its scientific edition. E.F. Parubochaya analyzed cases related to the implementation by Russia of nuclear power plant projects in Iran and Turkey.

Introduction. In this article, Russian Federation's public diplomacy (hereinafter – the RF) and the public diplomacy of the United States of America (hereinafter – the USA) are considered as one of the main tools for implementing the principles of modern "soft power". Today, the importance of implementing certain areas of public diplomacy of the RF is significantly increasing, which is primarily determined by the current contradictory international situation. It is necessary to emphasize that public diplomacy's certain areas are in the process of formation, however, a comprehensive study of these areas will reveal the weaknesses and strengths of public diplomacy as an effective tool for the implementation of Russian and American "soft power". It is important to refer to the American experience of building public diplomacy, as a country with advanced experience in this area, as the public diplomacy has become a key tool of U.S. foreign policy in recent years. Methods. The comparative method makes it possible to compare the practices of implementing public diplomacy, the demonstration of "soft power" of the RF and the USA, and also helps to identify the mechanisms of public diplomacy's influence on international processes in the formation of "soft power" strategies. This method allowed us to establish that the mechanisms for public diplomacy's implementing and "soft power" realization are identical. Documents' content analysis of the describing of the RF and the USA foreign policy peculiarities helped to determine the mechanisms and principles of the implementation of "soft power" under consideration by the states. Analysis. Public diplomacy's activities analysis of the RF and the USA public diplomacy, its relationship with the principles of "soft power" is connected with the search for common and distinctive features of the considered types of diplomacy, comparing it with the "soft power" concept. Attention is drawn to the fact that many public diplomacy' functions intersect with the tasks of "soft power", identifying the characteristic features of a joint vector in the "soft power" implementation in the context of the RF and the USA diplomacy. Results. As the study's result, it was found out that public diplomacy is one of the most important tools of the "soft power" demonstration of the RF and the USA soft power demonstration. Such definitions as "public diplomacy" and "soft power" were distinguished in the article. The approaches of domestic and foreign researchers for understanding public diplomacy from the points of the RF and the USA, as well as directions of its activities, were also determined. In this article, Elena F. Parubochaya identified the characteristic differences Russian interpretation of the terms "public diplomacy". The author revealed the connection between public diplomacy of the RF and its "soft power". Kenneth J. Kovach paid attention to the instruments of the USA modern public diplomacy.

Introduction. Due to the destabilization of the situation in the countries of the South Caucasus in 2020, the region is of particular relevance today. At the present stage, it is an object of geopolitical competition for numerous international actors: the Russian Federation, the United States of America, the European Union, the Republic of Turkey. The article examines the EU policy in the process of implementing the Eastern Partnership program as part of the European political strategy. In relation to the South Caucasus region, the interim results of the EU's activities on the implementation of 20 deliverables for 2020 in relation to the states of the South Caucasus are analyzed. Methods. Comparative analysis makes it possible to give a comprehensive assessment of European policy in the region by identifying priority areas and development prospects by comparing the intermediate results of 20 deliverables for 2020 in the South Caucasus countries within the framework of their bilateral relations with the EU. Analysis. The analysis of the activities of the European Union in relation to the South Caucasus countries is associated with the determination of the prospects for the development of the European strategy in the region. The analysis included tracking the dynamics of the implementation of the 20 deliverables for 2020 in relation to Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia, as well as options for developing a European strategy in the South Caucasus countries, taking into account the new policy in the context of the Eastern Partnership beyond 2020. Results. As a result of the analysis, the EU's competitive advantages in the South Caucasus were determined by identifying areas in which the EU's geopolitical interests intersect with other actors.