Vol 21, No 1 (2021): Conceptualizing the Problems of World Politics through the Prism of IR Theory

The article reflects the results of research in the North-South Group focused on the development of the polycentric, personalized and mobile Universe, while the ensemble of interconnected influential concepts (postmodernity and postcoloniality) had been analyzed. The current view on globalization as a political and economic cohesion of the modern world, contrasts the view on global restructuring as a consequence of the crisis of institutions of world bureaucracy, collectivist ideo-party totality, others unifying administrative and sociocultural mechanics. Attention is drawn to the trends of individuation and privatization, substitution of subordination by subsidiarity, which reflects the crisis of the national statehood format. The complex reality that arises in the bosom of modern culture, implements its own polycentricity, based not on the etatist symphony, but on a distributed set of diasporas, corporate or personal sovereignty. Postmodernity, denying the former world order, reproduces the semblance of a post-colonial situation, which allows us to turn to the experience of countries that have gained political sovereignty and mastered their new status in its various versions. Coloniality is understood as the result of hegemony, which goes beyond the prevailing interpretation of colonialism, but as a repressive emanation of the hegemonic world, offering subaltern other two modus of behavior: submission or subjugation assimilation, denying the legality of alternative self-realization or resistance. Pathos of post-modern, post-imperial and post-colonial positions declares the right of the individual and the communities to realize their original identity, dissimilation of former loyalties and sovereign search for alternatives. The universal quest is for political, sociocultural and semantic counter-hegemony, which also denies the current world to be an instrument of the modal-assimilation complex “knowledge - power”. The urgency of this problem was confirmed by the riots that broke out in the United States and other parts of the world in 2020.

This paper uses the method of applied analysis of regional complexes developed at the Centre for Comprehensive Chinese Studies and Regional Projects, MGIMO University (Moscow, Russia). Its scientific relevance is defined by the importance of understanding the international and political situation in and around Myanmar. The aim of this study is a scientific exploration of the Rohingya crisis by means of applied methods of regional analysis, designed by the author. This methodology aims to trace scenarios of the development of international and political situations in the region based on the types of interactions within the Southeast Asian regional complex. The article offers the author’s own definition of regional complex that builds on the works of Alexei D. Voskressenski, introduces an algorithm of scenario analysis, outlines six “ideal” types of regional complexes, and defines stable and unstable types of regional complexes. The first part of the article is devoted to current approaches in the study of regional problems in International Relations and World Regional Studies; the second part describes the author’s conception of applied international political analysis of regional complexes; and the third part contains an example of the application of scenario analysis to specific regional and domestic affairs - in this case, the contemporary situation in Myanmar’s Rakhine State. The research yields the following results: 1) by using a combination of the methods of news monitoring and event analysis, the author collected information on political processes in Rakhine over the last five years; 2) this information was arranged according to the matrix compiled by the author, which characterized the situation development according to the negative (-5…-1) and positive (+1…+5) scenarios; 3) based on the results of the aforesaid analysis, the author comes to a conclusion on the character and intensity of the Rohingya crisis and describes possible ways of its settlement.

The article presents an analysis of the BRICS countries’ climate policies at the global and national levels. The authors consider the positions of these states within the framework of both international climate conferences (Conference of the Parties) held under the auspices of the UN since 1992, and the summits of BRICS member states in the years 2011-2020. The paper covers strategies and results of national climate policies implemented in these countries. Using structural, comparative, and content analysis methods, the authors emphasize that BRICS countries play a key role in stabilizing the climate of our planet today. It is impossible to achieve the main aim of the Paris Agreement without a comprehensive transformation of environmental practices in these societies. BRICS adheres to the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” in its position towards international climate policy; the BRICS countries stand for sustainable economic growth through the introduction of new environmental technologies, and against restrictive measures that impede their economic development. At the same time, the Russian economy’s dependence on the extraction and export of fuel resources complicates environmental transformation. Russia is dominated by a negative narrative of climate change, where the urgent ecological modernization of the economy is seen as a threat to key sectors (oil and gas) of the economy. The implementation of international agreements to reduce the carbon intensity of the Russian economy, the creation of conditions for the transition to climate-neutral technologies, would contribute not only to the fight against global climate change, but would become a powerful incentive for the modernization of the economy, accelerating innovation and increasing its competitiveness.

The foreign policy realized by Turkey’s president clearly evidences the fact that Erdogan does not accept today’s world order as a model for the near future. This has led to the proposition of The World Is Bigger than Five formula since 2013. At least in several key regions, Ankara attempts to change the world order through more than emotional declarations; it uses both hard and soft power in the Eastern Mediterranean, Middle East, Black Sea region, Caucasus, and Central Asia. The main indicators of Turkish soft and hard power (military, economic, technological factors, and attractiveness of mass culture) are examined to identify possibilities of Turkey to change the balance of power in key regions and on a global scale. From 2007, the vision of Turkey as an influential actor globally has been propagated by the Turkish elite of the Justice and Development Party (AKP). Geopolitical, civilizational, and systematic approaches are used. The research process is carried out within the paradigm of classical and critical geopolitics. During the AKP’s time in power, moderate Islamists gave Turkey a new impetus - a return to its civilizational roots. One must note the state’s development of its economy, military-industrial complex, and the new national position globally as a patron of every Muslim. Modern Turkey can be considered a great regional power with sectoral global leadership in its military attainment, and due to the attractiveness of its model of development. Ankara invests heavily in soft power, its success is based on the Turkish development ideology, which represents a synthesis of neo-Ottoman, neo-Pan-Turkic and pan-Islamic ideas. The revival of Turkey as a regional power and its desire to become a world power will inevitably increase the space of contradictions in Russian-Turkish relations, reducing the sphere of cooperation between the two countries.

This article is an attempt to critically analyze the policy of the 45th President of the United States Donald Trump regarding the southern border of the USA with Mexico. The paper analyzes the approach of Washington under the administration of D. Trump to the problem of the joint border between USA and Mexico, as well as conducts a comprehensive assessment of the main programs underlying the most pressing changes in D. Trump’s policy in this area. In particular, the paper focuses on the structure of migration flows between 2017 and 2019, as well as on the reasons behind those changes. The author looks at the root causes of the unprecedented increase in the flow of potential migrants and refugees, and correlates them with the ongoing political, economic and humanitarian crises in the Central American sub-region. An important focus is given to the increasing role of Mexico in the settlement of this issue, as well as to the potential impact of such cooperation between the authorities of the United States and Mexico on the situation in Central America and Latin America in general. The significance of this paper is determined by the objective necessity of academic evaluation of the Donald Trump’s administration impact on the United States governmental and foreign policy course. The author argues that the approach of the 45th president of the United States regarding traditionally sensitive issues like US - Mexico border control and migration has been mostly based on coercive tactics with obvious disregard towards social basis and root-causes of the issue at hand. One of the most distinguished traits of this approach is the practice of “outsourcing” managing the problem of refugees from Central America to the border-country, which in this specific case is Mexico.

The article provides an analysis of Turkish-Venezuelan relations amid Turkey-Latin American ties enhancing. In 2015-2019, this way of intercontinental cooperation has reached a peak. This was reflected in the intensification of trade and economic relations, as well as in the strengthening of diplomatic ties. The author analyzes the causes and international factors of the ongoing rapprochement. The analysis is carried out by tracking the trajectory of the changes in Turkey's foreign policy from the perspective of its gradual departure from the pro-Western course. The main emphasis is placed on the evolution and current stage of the Turkish-Venezuelan relations. After periods of recession and boom by 2016 relations between Venezuela and Turkey had come into a turning point. In recent years, their bilateral partnership has been markedly distinguished on the background of Ankara’s relations with other states of the region. Venezuela has a record frequency of interstate official visits and a high degree of mutual understanding with the Turkish leadership on fundamental issues. The author carried out a comparative analysis of the two states’ political and historical special characteristics. The author comes to the conclusion that the format of Turkish-Venezuelan partnership is built on the basis of responding to common to the two states current external challenges. Both states are under sanctions pressure, although with a varying degrees of severity; both economies are experiencing crisis moments. These factors contribute to the development of economic interaction between the states on a mutually beneficial basis. For Venezuela, its economic cooperation with Turkey is a significant factor mitigating the negative effects of the permanent economic crisis. The supply of Turkish foodstuffs helps to reduce a food shortage, while Ankara's purchases of Venezuelan gold contribute to the replenishment of the Venezuelan budget with currency assets. We can talk about the existing geostrategic partnership, which has, if not long-term, then medium-term potential.

The article examines the role of the Cyprus issue in the bilateral relations between Greece and the USSR in 1956-1960. It is based on primal archival research realised at the Constantine Karamanlis Archive (AKK) and at the Diplomatic and Historical Archive of the Greek Foreign Ministry (DIAYE) in Athens. The analysis of the recently declassified documents relate to the events which took place in 1954, when the Soviet Union supported the Greek claims for self-determination of the Cypriot people in the United Nations on the basis of the anti-colonial principles. This contributed to the impressive increase in trade between Greece and the USSR, especially after the unofficial visit of the Soviet Foreign Minister D.T. Shepilov to Athens in 1956. Against the backdrop of the deterioration of the international situation in 1957, Kremlin heavily criticized NATO’s decision to deploy the US Intermediate Range Ballistic Missiles (IRBMs) in Europe and applied diplomatic pressures to NATO member-states including Greece. The shift from tensions to a peaceful offensive strategy, characteristic of the Soviet diplomacy towards Greece, proved to be a double-edged sword for Moscow in the long term. The author concludes that both countries exploited the Cyprus issue for their benefit. Thus, Moscow managed to take advantage of the Greek discontent with the NATO allies as a means of increasing its own prestige in the region, while the Greek governments capitalized on the Soviet tactics in order to increase its political leverage in confronting NATO on Cyprus.

Russia and Iran have maintained continuous diplomatic relations since 1592. During the post-Soviet period, relations between the Russian Federation and the Islamic Republic of Iran have strengthened significantly. The leaderships of both countries seek to turn their relations into a strategic partnership. However, the main obstacle to achieving this goal is the negative perception of the other by the peoples of both countries. The purpose of this study is to understand how modern Russians and Iranians see each other and the relations between their governments. This article examines data from sociological surveys, opinions of Russian and Iranian experts, and analyzes the images of Iran and Russia presented in school-level history textbooks of the two countries. We note negative stereotypes and a distrust of Russia among modern Iranians. Russia receives far more attention in Iranian history textbooks than Iran in Russian ones. For Iranians, the image of Russia as a neighbor is more important than the image of Russia as a great world power. However, the image of Russia in general is negative; Russia is seen as a country to be feared. The negative image of Russia among Iranians is formed through selective and often erroneous interpretation, rather than historical facts. Although opinion polls in contemporary Russia divulge a generally positive image of Iran, the country is not seen as important to respondents - it remains distant, exotic, and incomprehensible. Modern Russians have very faint ideas about their Southern neighbor, Iran. Persia and Iran receive so little attention in Russian school textbooks that it is difficult to talk about the image of this country as positive or negative.

-

-

-

-