In the view of an apparent change in balance of power in Syria in 2017-2018 the challenges of reconstruction of the territories affected by a durable and highly destructive conflict have quickly risen to the forefront of the international agenda. A sheer scope of physical damage and humanitarian crisis in the country and a catastrophic lack of financial resources needed to mitigate consequences of a military confrontation and come back to normal life leave no doubt that the reconstruction process will imply a considerable external support. This paper identifies the particularities of Russia’s and the Western countries’ approaches to Syria’s reconstruction based on available public sources and their respective perceptions of related political dilemmas. Such a comparison has been made neither by Russian scholars who have touched upon the reconstruction agenda only sporadically or examined only the Russian motives, nor by foreign experts who have not studied the Russia’s initiatives scrupulously yet. The first section summarizes publicly available information about the bilateral Russian-Syrian dialogue on reconstruction and the main dimensions of the Russian efforts aimed at ensuring a more active engagement of the established donors in reconstruction of Syria. The second section examines the origins and a subsequent evolution of the key representatives of the ‘Group of Friends of the Syrian People’ (primarily, the U.S. and the EU countries) positions on rebuilding Syria. Special attention is paid to identifying similarities and differences between the circumstances surrounding Syria’s reconstruction and the international context around implementation of other large post-conflict reconstruction programs, primarily in Iraq and Afghanistan. The conclusion is drawn that ‘mutually assured obstruction’ and the development of two parallel reconstruction processes to the west and to the east of the Euphrates River will have an extremely negative impact on both Syria and a wider region. Prevention of this scenario entails a wide range of reputational, economic and political-strategic risks for all actors inside and outside Syria.

Since the beginning of the civil war in Syria, the United States of America and the Turkish Republic have been active supporters of a replacement of the Syrian government and the resignation of the President B. al-Assad. The search for a solution to the “Syrian issue” has opened up broad opportunities for Turkish-American cooperation. The article observes the most important areas of this interaction and attempts to explain the intensification of the Turkish-American contradictions in the context of the events of recent years in Syria. The twopart structure of the article reflects the logic of Turkish-American relations development as a result of rapid change of the balance of power in Syria and the region. Two phases are clearly visible. AmericanTurkish cooperation, including joint work to strengthen the combat potential of the Syrian opposition, took place in the early stages of the Syrian conflict in 2011-2013. However, by 2014 it was replaced by the two states’ rivalry for influence in the Syrian Arab Republic. The “Kurdish issue” became the main reason for the deepening differences between the allies. It started to determine Ankara and Washington’s behavior to all the participants of the conflict in Syria. Intensification of struggle against terrorism in the Syrian Arabic Republic revealed deep differences in both Turkish and American governments’ approaches towards the key participants of the Syrian conflict. The author concludes that today the United States and Turkey are acting on the Syrian direction based on the unconditional priority of their own national interests, but not the formal allied obligations binding them.

The article deals with “hard” and “soft” elements of Iran’s contemporary anti-terrorism approach. The authors state that fighting against terrorism today demands a comprehensive approach, and though force-based approach has always prevailed over “soft” tools in realization of anti-terrorist strategies of states, in modern world realities without a psycho-ideological component combating terrorism does not seem to succeed. A balanced universal model of using these two components does not exist, as everything in this context depends on specifics of a country or a region. But the need for considering “soft” aspects becomes more relevant. Iran is an active player in combating international terrorism, though it does not have a unified document or specific strategy with defined “hard” and “soft” tools of anti-terrorism fight. The force-based element of Iran’s counter-terrorism approach at the present stage obviously prevails over the non-powerbased. The country’s active military involvement in solution of the Syrian crisis, supporting military groups, which fight against radical element in the region and tough policy towards drug traffic is an important source of income for extremist factions, proves the matter. “Hard power” approach in fighting against terrorism leads to physical extermination of terrorists, however, consideration of the survival of their ideas in modern info-communications century reveals the significance of the issue of “soft” instrument use in anti-terrorism strategy. In fight against terrorism in this dimension, Iran resorts to “soft power” and public diplomacy. The cultural, religious and scientific potentials as well as educational institutes and information resources are actively utilized to construct a correct understanding of Islam and its positive image, to delegitimate and deconstruct narratives of radical Islamists.

A world free from wars and bloody conflicts was the ideal preached at all times by the best minds of mankind. But man fought in the extreme antiquity, he continues to fight in our days and, apparently, will fight while there are human communities. Representations of the types and nature of wars and armies, defense systems, means and methods of force corresponding to changing realities developed, but at all times human communities in various forms and hypostases did not consider the peace to be a supreme good. In many respects the history of mankind itself appears as an uninterrupted series of wars of tribes, peoples, nations, empires, clans, parties, etc. Some tried to subjugate foreign countries and peoples; others thirsted for military glory, while thirds considered it better to die standing, than to live on their knees. In any case, the justifications for wars always found the most convincing, since man, judging by his deeds, acted as if subconsciously guided by the Mephistophelian maxim - there is nothing in the world that is worth pity. It is also not accidental that from the earliest times skeptics never ceased to assert that homo homini lupus est , that is, man is a wolf to man. And from this formula followed another, no less well-known postulate - bellum omnium contra omnes , i.e. war of all against all. However, this is only one side of the history of mankind. The other side is that the state of an absolute, endless war of all against all would be fraught with the prospect of mutual extermination of countries and peoples. The antithesis of war is peace, every war ends in peace, and different tribes, peoples, human societies, and states from the very beginning sought some kind of modus vivendi, as well as the generally accepted and respected norms and rules that ensure it. In the present article, the author analyzes the causes and forms of the totalization of the war for the last century, especially in the context of global trends - globalization, the information and telecommunication revolution.

The subject of the study covers the priority areas (both geographical and sectoral) of development cooperation provided by the Russian Federation and the Peoples’ Republic of China to the Asian and African states. The authors conduct a comparative analysis of the main recipients of assistance from the two countries, as well as its main sectors for 2011-2014. The methodological basis of this study is based on the principles of reliability and scientific objectivity. The study applied the method of comparative analysis, which includes elements of both quantitative and qualitative approach. The authors present the methodological challenges that arise while collecting statistical data and comparing aid flows of new donors. The data on development cooperation of the PRC (recipients, directions, volumes) presented in the AidData project is widely used. Data on Russian development cooperation is partially presented in OECD statistics, but it covers only data on the total amount of assistance to recipients. Since the data on Chinese aid is available for the period of 2000-2014, and on Russian aid - for 2011-2017, the study period for data comparison includes 2011-2014. The result of the study is summarized in the table with the top-10 recipients of the Russian and the Chinese assistance to countries in Asia and Africa. Quantitative data on the flows of Russian and Chinese aid is complemented by qualitative data on specific assistance projects and the characteristics of their implementation, which allows to form a more complex picture of the two new donors’ flows and outline directions for coordinating their efforts in Asia and Africa.

BRICS is now entering a new decade of its activity. The institute enters a new decade in the conditions of a general multilateralism crisis, the growth of protectionist and nationalist sentiments even in the most liberal states, the leaders do not want to be responsible for solving key problems and do not have the power to cope with challenges by themselves. On the one hand, BRICS members need to deepen and intensify the cooperation to compensate for possible losses in cooperation with western partners, and, on the other hand, consolidate their position on strengthening their influence in the global governance system as a whole. BRICS membership has been one of the key priorities for Brazil’s foreign policy for the last years. This membership allows the country to develop relations with other major regional powers, and to consolidate the position on the most important issues both for BRICS countries and the entire system of global governance. Brazil’s numerous economic problems and a serious political system crisis led to the election of a radical anti-establishment candidate Jair Bolsonaro. BRICS agenda requires transformation to preserve and increase its influence and relevance in the international system. Under these conditions Brazil will begin its presidency in the institution. This study presents an analysis of the general context in which BRICS is now functioning, the problems and goals of Brazil’s current socio-economic and political development and the objectives of its foreign policy and the opportunities and limitations that are brought by Brazil’s presidency in BRICS.

In the modern world the struggle for access to hydrocarbon fields and for routes to world markets has a significant impact on the political and economic processes at the global and regional levels. One of the regions in which the energy factor plays a significant role is the Caspian basin, which has rich oil and gas fields, as well as significant transport potential that can reliably connect Russia, South Caucasus and Central Asia with the European region. In view of the geopolitical, geostrategic and energy importance of the Caspian Sea, the solution of the question on its legal status was one of the central tasks in the foreign policy of the Caspian states. The problem of determining the international legal status of the Caspian arose due to the cessation of the existence of the USSR and the increase of number of Caspian littoral states interested in the territories of the Caspian from two (USSR and Iran) to five (Russian Federation, Republic of Kazakhstan, Republic of Turkmenistan, Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) and Republic of Azerbaijan (RA)). From that moment, the protracted period of their negotiations on relevant issues on a bilateral and multilateral basis began, which resulted in the signing of the Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian in August 2018, or so-called “Caspian Constitution”. This article examines the main milestones in the development of this problem and notes the importance of the signed “Constitution” in terms of the interests of the RA and Iran. At the same time, the author pays special attention to the adoption of the aforementioned Convention, which may further influence to the Azerbaijani-Iranian relations. The author notes that today favourable conditions have been created for energy cooperation between Baku and Tehran in the Caspian Sea, and also emphasizes the key importance of solving the problem of the legal status on the Caspian Sea for security and developing economic relations between the two countries, in particular, its role in the international energy corridor project. In addition, the importance of cooperation between Azerbaijan and Iran in the field of transit traffic in the framework of the “North-South” international transport corridor project has been analyzed. The author concludes that the signed Convention will serve as an additional impetus for the development of bilateral cooperation.

Professor Alex J. Bellamy is Director Asia Pacific Centre for R2P, Professor of Peace & Conflict Studies, University of Queensland, Non-Resident Senior Advisor, International Peace Institute (New York). He is the author of Kosovo and International Society [Bellamy 2002], Security Communities and Their Neighbours: Regional Fortresses or Global Integrators? [Bellamy 2004], Understanding Peacekeeping [Bellamy, Williams, Griffin 2004], International Society and Its Critics [Bellamy 2005], Just Wars: From Cicero to Iraq [Bellamy 2006], Fighting Terror: Ethical Dilemmas [Bellamy 2008], Responsibility to Protect: the Global Effort to End Mass Atrocities [Bellamy 2009], Responsibility to Protect: A Defence [Bellamy 2014], Providing Peacekeepers: The Politics, Challenges, and Future of United Nations Peacekeeping Contributions [Bellamy, Williams 2013] and Massacres and Morality [Bellamy 2012]. Alex J. Bellamy is one of the editorial board of Ethics & International Affairs, co-editor of The Global Responsibility to Protect Journal. In his interview, Prof. Bellamy talks about institutionalization of R2P concept that would be able to help in prevention of genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Prof. Bellamy identifies three categories of situations where it’s proving very difficult to protect civilians.

-

-