The article is focused on Belarusians’ self-identification within civilizational borderland as it appears to have a considerable impact on the nation’s complex identification process and remains critical in contemporary Belarus under its strongman A. Lukashenko. Significantly, the current head of state and, most importantly, the official political course can be regarded as the key “identifier” of the Belarusian nation in the geopolitical and civilizational dimension. Lukashenko’s pendulum-like foreign policy highlights the national identity reference points and defines its either pro-Russian or pro-Western leaning. In the context of regime’s relentless maneuvering between Moscow and Brussels, Belarusians’ pro-Russia and pro-West orientations reached parity at the end of 2010. It might imply that the country’s identification trajectory can be modified in accordance with the ruling elite’s foreign policy imperatives and the current political conjuncture. Despite the fact that the elements of European identity are present in Belarusians’ identity code, notably as the symbol of better living standards, its role is far from relevant. Instead, strong bonds with the Eastern Orthodox civilization—nurtured within the Pan-Slavic “Russian world” paradigm—will probably prevail as the dominant vector for the nation’s identification in the long-term perspective.

What does civil society mean in an unevenly developed country with a high level of poverty and abundance of traditional and quasi-traditional norms and structures? What is the history of the evolving Pakistani civil society, what trends and perspectives awaits it in the conditions of long lasting deep crises in economy and security sphere? How does the civil society react to the strengthening of ideology of Islamic radicalism and Islamic nationalism? These are some issues discussed in the article. It does not claim to cover in full the relatively new phenomenon in a specific Asian country occupying a remarkable place in the policy of Russia to the south of its borders.

Increasing global competition creates threats for Russia and Europe to remain independent centres of power. However, they could strengthen their standing through deepen cooperation with each other. Throughout the last two decades serious and repeating but unsuccessful attempts were made for such cooperation. The article examines both prerequisites and obstacles to the preferential partnership between Russia and Europe.

Main approaches to the studies of internal and external causes of colour revolutions in Georgia, Kyrgyzstan and the Ukraine are reviewed. The article considers colour revolutions in the context of the fourth wave of democratization and concludes that colour revolutions encouraged the development of the civil society, party systems, parliamentarianism, the transparency of state bodies, and electoral process.

The new book by the specialist on modern Japan, Professor A.A. Koshkin places the major emphasis on the historic events, which complicate present relations of the two posers. The author calls these events the knots of contradictions. The book analyzes in detail the historic facts and related documents of the Russian and Japanese parties. The Japanese historiography interprets some of these facts as the proof of the claims of the land of the rising sun on the Russian territories. The study of the Russian and Japanese arguments leads the author to the conclusion that the present day politics of Japan towards the Russian Federation originates from the Russia’s neighbor militarist past brewed on nationalism.

The article explores interaction in the U.S.-Turkey-France triangle on military and political issues related to the rejoining of NATO military organization by France in 2009. This analysis is important to clarify the level of NATO coherence, speed of the emergence of polycentric world and to forecast behavior of these three partners. The article studies differences in doctrines and approaches of the three countries to the Iranian, Syrian, Libyan and Afghan crises. In regards to each of the crises interests of three countries are identified, which define their poitions. The authors come to the conclusion that existing differences are not deep and reflect divergent rather than antagonistic interests.

Throughout the last two decades the creation of a multipolar world was proclaimed more than once in bilateral documents signed by Russia and China. Meanwhile, even studies of scholars from those two countries testify that unipolarity remains in the international relations. However, relevant scenarios do not exclude possibility of multipolarlity in not so far future. Yet despite certain similar challenges Russian and Chinese international standing differs a lot. While China emerges as the second superpower Russia has to fight for its place among the great powers.

Chinese approach towards peacekeeping evolved significantly through out the last few decades. Previous total denial in the 1980s transformed into acceptance of peacekeeping as valuable instrument of global governance. Since the beginning of 2000s peacekeeping emerge as integral component of Chinese global strategy, contributing to its national interests. As a result China significantly increased its participation in UN-led international operations.