The article examines the issue of the international and nationally distinctive, which has been the subject of a new “big debate” in the science of international relations in the last 15 years. The authors show that despite the dominance of “universalist” positions within the Western academic mainstream, their criticism continues to grow. In this regard, an interesting project of the global IR theory by A. Acharya and B. Buzan is being discussed. In our view, with all the positive features of this project, it is informed by the outdated West-centric view of the world. The declared consideration of non-Western intellectual, socio-cultural and historical traditions in the formation of a global view of the world does not contain an understanding of the concept of identity, which is replaced by the concepts of regions and multiple agents-participants. However, without such an understanding, neither the historical reconstruction of the global, nor the understanding of its social and intellectual roots is possible. Any theory contains multiple levels and is based on important politico-ideological assumptions, which are national, and not universal. Any theory, including international theory, is also a product of time, place and social relations. Such theory is based on local specifics and conditions. Scientific concepts cannot be developed only from one part of the culturally pluralist world. Therefore, a condition for such development should be a socio-cultural and political dialogue between scholars representing different countries and parts of the world. For Russia, this implies the need to understand its own historical and cultural conditions and mobilize its own intellectual capital in their examination and development of national IR theory.