As think tanks continue to grow exponentially in number worldwide, their infl uence on world politics has also been increasing. These think tanks, including Russia’s policy-oriented scientifi c research institutes, study a wide range of pressing political, social and economic issues, present their ideas and recommendations to national governments and international institutions, and promote international dialogue to foster solutions to world’s most burning problems. For think tanks to remain trustworthy and infl uential, they need to maintain their integrity, independence of judgement, in-depth scholarship, and a sharpened focus on real-world outcomes. Their impact will also depend on their effi ciency in promoting their fi ndings through an active publications campaign, fi rst-rate conferences and seminars, skillful outreach programs, innovative Internet activities, and cutting-edge social networking. With the assistance of think tanks, the world politics will be better informed and thus more enlightened, future-oriented, resourceful, and better equipped to fi nd solutions to ongoing confl icts, build international cooperation, and avoid crises in the future.

The contemporary transformation and chaos in international relations reduce its predictability, which must be compensated by strengthening the normative content of its analysis that is in fact strategic planning. The deepening of international relations in recent years allows one to make a pessimistic conclusion about the most likely and dangerous scenario for the development of international relations - «the strengthening of military power struggles among the major local human civilizations» and they represent a militarypolitical coalitions and power centers. It should be noted that an effective tool for the implementation of this confrontation is the system of military and civilian instruments used to provide comprehensive multi-factor and multi-dimensional effect on an object. Today, the most striking example of such an integrated infl uence policy is the new public diplomacy. For implementation of such an integrated approach Russia needs to reform the system of national security to include in it not only the traditional enforcement agencies, but also the organizations of business and civil society, as well as to improve coordination between its individual parts. However, the implementation of such a reform is impossible without national ideology that forms the regulatory priorities of national development and national security

The article analyzes the guiding imperatives behind Russia’s grand strategy in the Mideast, including both its domestic decision-making institutional idiosyncrasies and the wider geopolitical considerations at play. It discusses the evolution of Russian strategy after the so-called “Arab Spring” events and into the present day, taking care to individually analyze Moscow’s most important bilateral relationships. The review begins by addressing Russia’s anti-terrorist intervention in Syria, before progressing to some words about the two competing foreign policy factions present in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. After outlining the key differences between the Liberal and Military-Security camps, the work then broadly explains how their rivalry fi gures into the formulation of Russia’s overall grand strategy in the Mideast. Following that, it logically proceeds to examine the other bilateral relationships that are of signifi cance to Moscow, beginning with Turkey, Iraq, and Israel, and ending with Saudi Arabia and Iran. The goal of the research is to establish a very general understanding of how Russia’s foreign policy is presently practiced in the Mideast, how and why it got to where it is today, and forecast on the prospects for its further development. In doing this, the article relies on empirical observations and references several under-discussed news items that have evaded wider scrutiny. It also makes use of a few academic sources in proving that the geopolitical environment in which Russia conducts its present foreign policy was largely shaped by the US’ legacy of Hybrid Wars on the region, which in hindsight created fertile ground for the revolution in Russia’s Mideast strategy. In summary, Russia seeks to replace the US as the Mideast countries’ most preferred and trusted partner, capitalizing off of Washington’s decline in regional infl uence brought about by the disastrous rise of Daesh and the controversial perceptions over the Iranian nuclear deal in order to fi ll the strategic void that’s been created in America’s wake, and as of the end of 2016, Moscow has been wildly successful.

The article is devoted to the study of problematic issues of the change of modern international relations system. It was found that such changes have affected the very essence of international relations: actors (the emergence of non-governmental actors, the importance of which is increasing), methods (the scope of military diplomacy has been expanded), objects (the nature of armed confl icts, both international and non-international, has been changed; the concept of international crime is determined by the danger posed to the international community). The author sets time frameworks of the changes, studies the characteristics of international system and its elements. The study focuses on the phenomenon of military diplomacy and criteria of its effectiveness. These criteria for the effectiveness of military diplomacy are applied to the Russia’s actions in Syria as part of its fi ght against international terrorism. The key documents of cooperation between the Russian Federation and the Syrian Arab Republic are analyzed. The research is focused on Russian measures in its war against terror in Syria. The author posits that Russia’s actions in Syria represent a model which refl ects the role of non-governmental actors in world politics, the methods used in international affairs and the specifi cs of international crimes.

The article is devoted to the study of problematic issues of the change of US-China trade is going up notwithstanding the slowdown of Chinese economy. Those US fi rms who placed production in China became more involved into Chinese internal market. Chinese investments into US prevail over the US investments in China. The decisions of the Chinese leadership to set up the new market priorities in the economic development are implemented with obvious diffi culties, but being implemented, could stimulate US-China ties.

The article is devoted to the analysis of policies of the two latest American presidents George W. Bush (2001-2008) and Barack Obama (his fi rst administration, 2009-2012) towards Russian Federation and its neighbors – states of the CIS. The author in detail considers main milestones of this policy, its aims, ways, methods and results. The author highlights and analyzes main reasons of degradation of bilateral relations during George W. Bush presidency and considers positive results of “Reset” policy of fi rst Barack Obama’s administration, at the same time noting their limitation and maintenance of disagreements in a few important problems. Policy of the USA towards Russia and other states of the CIS is considered in broader context of fundamental attitudes in foreign policy of neoconservative Republican George W. Bush’ administration and Democratic Barack Obama’s administration. The author makes the main conclusion that as a whole policy of the Democrats towards the Russian Federation and its neighbors was more reasonable, fl exible and effective and let the United States because of softening of rhetoric and a few small compromises return relations with Russia to constructive cooperation and get from this country assistance in all key areas. But by the end of the fi rst Barack Obama’s term a few negative trends became obvious, and these trends developed during the second term of Obama’s presidency. Post-Soviet area has remained potential “battlefi eld” in relations between the two countries, and later this fact has led to the crisis in Crimea and Ukraine, which continues nowadays.

Amid further political and economic sanctions imposed by the USA and the EU on the Russian Federation, Russia is experiencing a gradual pivot towards the East; among other states Russia is intensifying its ties with Central Asia and China. From this perspective, deepening confl ict between Russia and the USA might be explained as a clash of their political interests. The political environment of the modern system of international relations refl ects the rise of political disagreements between Russia and the USA in the Central Asian republics. To pursue its political ends in Central Asia Russia has to promote relations and cooperation within the Collective Security Treaty Organization, the Eurasian Economic Union and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

The article analyzes the Central Asian region and the infl uence of China on countries of the region from a position of geopolitical risks. For the analysis of the classifi cation of risks taken and on the basis of the theoretical knowledge in this area the article examines relations of China with the Central Asian countries. Using the results of their own research, the authors draw attention to the key points that should draw international attention until they escalate into regional confl icts.

Varieties of modern nondemocratic electoral political regimes is determined by institutional, structural, actor-oriented (procedural) differences between «the new autocracies». The trajectories of political transformation and regime changes in these hybrids depend largely on the specifi c political decisions and actions of key political actors in the process of democratization. This article analyzes the actions of the opposition from the angle of mobilization and cooperation as «winning» tactics in the electoral competitive nondemocratic regimes. The empirical part of the article includes: 1) forming a public protests database in the electoral cycle of 2015 (January-September) in the Central Federal District of Russia, which includes the regional authority elections, members of regional and local legislatures; 2) statistical processing of data of opposition’s participation / nonparticipation in public protests, number of protesters, opposition cooperative actions, issues of protests; 3) designing and measuring empirically observable features of protests make it possible to segment the public protest activity into 2 basic parts: civic activity and mobilization activity – and then to analyze the scope of cooperation of various opposition parties in mobilization actions. These results make it possible to answer the following questions: to what extent Russian opposition actors use public protest activity as mobilization resource and to what extent they are prepared for cooperation in a public protest fi eld?

The article analyzes the guiding imperatives behind Russia’s grand strategy in the Mideast, including both its domestic decision-making institutional idiosyncrasies and the wider geopolitical considerations at play. It discusses the evolution of Russian strategy after the so-called “Arab Spring” events and into the present day, taking care to individually analyze Moscow’s most important bilateral relationships. The review begins by addressing Russia’s anti-terrorist intervention in Syria, before progressing to some words about the two competing foreign policy factions present in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. After outlining the key differences between the Liberal and Military-Security camps, the work then broadly explains how their rivalry figures into the formulation of Russia’s overall grand strategy in the Mideast. Following that, it logically proceeds to examine the other bilateral relationships that are of significance to Moscow, beginning with Turkey, Iraq, and ‘Israel’, and ending with Saudi Arabia and Iran. The goal of the research is to establish a very general understanding of how Russia’s foreign policy is presently practiced in the Mideast, how and why it got to where it is today, and forecast on the prospects for its further development. In doing this, the article relies on empirical observations and references several under-discussed news items that have evaded wider scrutiny. It also makes use of a few academic sources in proving that the geopolitical environment in which Russia conducts its present foreign policy was largely shaped by the US’ legacy of Hybrid Wars on the region, which in hindsight created fertile ground for the revolution in Russia’s Mideast strategy. In summary, Russia seeks to replace the US as the Mideast countries’ most preferred and trusted partner, capitalizing off of Washington’s decline in regional influence brought about by the disastrous rise of Daesh and the controversial perceptions over the Iranian nuclear deal in order to fill the strategic void that’s been created in America’s wake, and as of the end of 2016, Moscow has been wildly successful. 

The Chinese economic model, which paved the way to «Chinese economic miracle» is running out of its capabilities. The new generation of leadership led by Xi Jinping is facing an extremely complicated task that can be compared to the one Deng Xiaoping had solved at the turn of 1980’s – to elaborate a new model of development. Measures adopted by the new General secretary of the CPC Central Committee in order to concentrate powers and to strengthen personal power are justifi ed by the need to change political course. However, as a result of these steps, the system of institutional authoritarianism that for the past 40 years was being created and provided economic success to China has been signifi cantly demolished. Current challenges for China originate not only from the necessity to change the economic model, but also from the reaction of the authorities to this need. Amidst uncertainty of new reference points for the reforms, lack of obvious competitive advantages, strengthening of external challenges and deep changes in Chinese society, China has again appeared on the verge of serious challenges, the answer to which will help evaluate the effectiveness of the reforms not only from socio-economic but also from a historical perspective.

The article compares the approaches undertaken by the government of former Indian prime-minister Manmohan Singh and that of Narendra Modi to promoting international cooperation in civil nuclear energy following the U.S.-India nuclear deal. The fi ndings indicate that Modi’s nuclear policy complements and, paradoxically, advances key initiatives of the opposing United Progressive Alliance. Specifi cally, Modi’s nuclear policy aims to foster solid ties with major global suppliers of uranium and atomic production while creating favourable external and internal environment conducive to India’s accessing international nuclear market where Indian companies would compete as suppliers of indigenous low and medium power reactors, varied nuclear equipment and materials as well as relevant services, for instance, on design, construction and commissioning of power plants.