The paper deals with the analysis of the concept “regional complex” by three mainstream approaches in the IR theory, namely, neorealism, neoliberalism, and social constructivism. In the English-speaking world the concept is mostly associated with the Regional Security Complexes Theory (RSCT) developed by Barry Buzan and Ole Wæver. However, such understanding reads the concept too narrow. Russian scholars (Alexei D. Voskressenski, Ekaterina V. Koldunova) broaden this understanding by engaging developmental issues. Yet, it seems that the concept “regional complex” still needs further elaboration. The author aims to analyze the use of the concept in the available English and Russian academic literature in order to reveal its scientific value. Having found that existing interpretations do not identify unambiguously the meaning of the “regional complex”, the author suggests her own definition of the regional complex as an integrated (“mature”) regional subsystem, which possesses its own actorness based on the feeling of a specific regional identity that is shared by peoples of the region as well as extra-regional observers. The paper offers an analytic comparison of the notions “region”, “regional subsystem”, “regional complex”. The main conclusion drawn by the author implies that the concept of “regional complex”, virtually ignored by English-speaking academic community, deserves an entry in the Russian political science thesaurus because it helps to conceptualise a promising field of international relations, that is, regional and interregional interaction. It seems that the use of this term is meaningful and productive for further development of the RussianschoolofWorld Regional Studies.

The article deals with “Chinese path” ‒ modernization transformation of the Chinese Civilization. It is shown that “Chinese path” reflects the formation and development of a new configuration of Chinese civilization. From civilizational transformation to “the Chinese path” is the gradual historical development, was the failure “to improve the state of construction of the” victory “of the revolution state-building”, the success of the “economic state-building”, constructing a “civilizational state-building”. Socialism with Chinese characteristics liberates and develops the productive forces, creating a socialist market economy, socialist democracy, advanced socialist culture, harmonious socialist society, eco-culture of socialism.

Starting from the aims of the research conceptualizing the functional modelling of the geostrategic region), the characteristics of the historic strategies, applied in the basins of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans, have been specified. In the process of selecting the area units for the forecast design, the construct connectedness incorporated in the feedback loop between the problem of creating the region, the means of solving this problem, the associated theories, concepts, documents and events, has been approbated. The applied aspect of the futurological complex has been noted. The definition of the geostrategic region has been offered, and assumptions about its functional role under the conditions of the fourth industrial revolution, during which regions appear as mutagens of the international environment, have been made.

The 18th CPC Congress marked a new era for China’s domestic and foreign policies. Building on traditional Chinese culture and Marxism, Chinahas achieved remarkable progress in diplomatic theory building in terms of theoretic framework, issue orientation, and methodologies, and now it is now time for systematic integration. While preparing for the CPC 19^th Congress, we should heighten consciousness of practice and theory, enhance issue awareness, grasp the essence of the matters, conduct analytic researches, and work at effective solutions, and stress summarization and crystallization, thus forming new concepts and theories. While buildingChina’s system of diplomatic theories, it is necessary to better align foreign policy with security and domestic policies; integrate diplomatic philosophy, theories, strategies, and policies; properly handle the relationships between Chinese characteristics, international relevance, and worldwide significance; and increase the applicability of theories in diplomatic practice.

The emergence of a “new triangle” in relations of China, Russiaand the United Stateshas become an objective reality. By its nature, structure, content, functionality and influence, the current triangle differs from the “great triangle” of the PRC-USA-USSR that existed in the past. In the relations of the three countries there is no definite rut of change, at the present stage their prospects are open. In the Sino-Russian-American “new triangle” there are many changes that can be divided into background changes and immediate changes that affect the structure of relationships. Changes in the “triangle” are not mechanical, isolated from the outside world and unilinear, they are determined by the interaction of many factors. Theoretically, in the “triangle” of China, Russiaand the United Statesthere are many possible models, the choice of which is not exclusively subjective and depends largely on the overall situation and real needs.
Creating a union is instrumental and theoretically there is no need to completely eliminate it from the set of diplomatic tools. Within the “triangle”, the Sino-Russian partnership without an alliance represents the best model, the conclusion of an alliance can only be a forced choice. The conclusion of the Sino-Russian alliance would imply a perception of theUnited States as an open enemy, and although the alliance can weaken the threat, designating a great power as an enemy will in itself create tremendous strategic pressure. A great strategic success forChina would be to prevent the appearance of the enemy, and especially not to allow the partner to turn into an enemy. Equally important is maintaining good ties with the other two powers at an even higher level of diplomacy. Although the likelihood of a Chinese-Russian military-political alliance is very low, the continued deterioration of Chinese-American and Russian-American relations could pushChina andRussia to create some kind of Asian bloc.China rejects the mentality of the Cold War and the “zero-sum game,” but it is able to rationally, effectively and constructively use the structure of the Chinese-Russian-American triangle.

“Soft power” has been an integral part of the foreign policy Arsenal of a number of States in recent decades. Including various tools, “soft power” as one of the most effective tools used to achieve the goals, includes education. Even during the cold war, the West and theSoviet Unionactively used education to train personnel in third countries who fully share the values of one or another party. In a multipolar world, the situation has changed somewhat-now all the major States, as well as their associations, seek to use education as a means of influence and influence on their counterparts. The article considers and analyzes the mechanisms used by this actors in the implementation of the policy of «soft power» through education, using the example of theUSA,Chinaand the European Union. As the analysis carried out in the article showed, both theUS,Chinaand the EU are actively using education to achieve their foreign policy goals. At the same time, their educational policy directed from outside has significant differences. As a result, we can talk about three different models of using education as a tool of «soft power». Each of them has its own distinctive features associated primarily with the specific mechanisms of use of education, as well as the content of educational policy and its meaning and ideological content. Nevertheless, despite the serious differences, we can confidently say that all three of the subjects of international relations considered in the article use education very successfully, often achieving a positive effect for themselves in the regions of their national interests.

The Editorial Board of Comparative Politics Russia publishes the proceedings of the roundtable “Prospects for Chinese Reforms in a Changed World.” Part I: “External Context of Reforms, Chinese-American Relations, Discussions on Economic Liberalization and Evaluation of Reforms Deepening in China,” devoted to the whole range of issues related to the results and prospects of the 40-year period of reforms and openness policy in the PRC.
Researchers from the Moscow State Institute of International Relations of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Russia, Institute of Far Eastern Studies of Russian Academy of Sciences, The Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia, Institute of Oriental Studies of Russian Academy of Sciences, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Primakov National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations, General Staff Academy of the Russian Federation’s Armed Forces, The Russian Institute for Strategic Studies, Lomonosov Moscow State University. Leading Russian experts discussed the external context of the reforms, the nature of economic liberalization, the consequences of the rejection of “hiding capacity”, the possibility of easing tensions in Chinese-American relations, China’s “capitulation” on American terms, as well as prospects for economic reforms in China and Chinese economic development in the distant future.

For most of the time since the establishment of the Chinese-Russian strategic partnership, diplomatic interaction was the main area of strategic cooperation between the two parties. Diplomatic interaction manifested generally in two aspects: maintaining a favorable environment and conditions of international security and a commitment to establish a new international political and economic order; supporting each other’s efforts to protect national sovereignty and territorial integrity. With start of “One Belt, One Union” project in 2015 and broadening of regional cooperation betweenChinaandRussia, the Chinese-Russian strategic partnership entered the stage of “common development”. Based on high-level diplomatic support,ChinaandRussiawill cooperate with each other in their respective economic and social development strategies and regional integration strategies in order to explore fully their potential for cooperation in order to achieve common development goals.

The authors argue that Russian-Chinese rapprochement is a fundamental feature of the current changing system of international relations. The two countries are effectively enabling each other to conduct independent foreign policies often in direct opposition to the West. There is a degree of complementarity between the two sides withRussiahaving comparative advantage in the military, intelligence and diplomatic fields andChinabeing an economic superpower. The region ofCentral Asiawhich, as some Western authors have expected, could become the hotpoint of the Russian Chinese rivalry. Yet in reality it became the cradle of the two countries’ cooperation which is now affecting a wide range of international issues. Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) has emerged as the main platform for Russian-Chinese cooperation inCentral Asia. AfterIndiaandPakistanjoined the SCO in 2017 it is evolving into a mechanism of Russian Chinese cooperation not only inCentral Asiabut in the Indo Pacific as a whole. The Korean peninsula is another important area of coordination betweenMoscowandBeijingin the Asia Pacific.RussiaandChinahave also been working on increasing interoperability of their military forces in the region since mid 2000s. Technically they have already done a great job for preparing ground for a military alliance. However, politically they do not appear to be ready for that yet.

The author analyzes the phenomenon of “seshyu: giin” in the political life of modern Japan, defines the share of hereditary politicians in the Parliament and the Government of Japan, assesses the influence of the leader’s origin on the country's domestic and external policy, using the biographies of Japanese leading politicians and their approach to the actual domestic and foreign issues.
“Hereditary politicians” in Japan have consistently maintained a high percentage of representation at the level of 20-30% of the total number of MPs, the share of “seshyu giin” rises to 50-60% at the level of the leadership of the LDP, parliamentary committees, heads of ministries. This phenomenon reflects the transformation of politics in Japan into a “family business” (“kagyo: ka”). An indirect evidence to this thesis is also the fact that nine of the fourteen PMs who headed the cabinet of ministers of Japan during the Heisei era (1989 ‒ nowadays.) can be classified as “seshyu: giin”. The analysis makes possible to make a number of practical conclusions.
Preparing analytical forecasts regarding changes in the Japanese political elite, as well as the configuration of future Cabinet Ministers, it is necessary to take into account not only information about the ideological views of politicians, connections with a particular party, but also family ties.
It seems logical that in the coming years the Prime Minister and ministerial posts will be occupied by such politicians as Koizumi S., Kishida F., Kono T., Nakasone J.. The Russian side should pay special attention to building relationship of mutual trust with the abovementioned politicians through intergovernmental, inter-parliamentary dialogue mechanisms.

The paper is a final piece of the three articles series, revealing a new eye-opening conception on true reasons and objectives of the “Tuapse” incident. The story of Soviet tanker Tuapse, captured by the ROC (Taiwan) Navy on June 23,1954 inopen seas nearTaiwanis widely covered in Russian and global mass media. The main events and dramatic story of the Tuapse crew are generally reconstructed, but the true reasons and aims of this incident remain an open question so far. This article, containing the comparative analyze of two incidents and multilateral politics at final stage of the related events (January August 1955), gives a final answer to this question. It presents a special interpretation of the events, leading to conclusion that the capture of Tuapse and its crew was nothing but a special CIA hostage swap operation, instrumental to negotiations on the release of 11 American airmen, imprisoned in PRC on January 12, 1953. As a result, the airmen were released on July 31, 1955, five days after the Tuapse seamen. The article is based on the US State Department and the CIA’s declassified archives, as well as the materials of the related Russian and international press.”.